Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Royal Parks (Cameras)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that visitors to London are forbidden to take personal photographs in the Royal Parks by means of a camera mounted on a tripod although the use of a hand camera is permitted; and if he will amend this regulation.

The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): The taking of photographs with a stand camera is not forbidden in the Royal Parks, but a permit is required. The purpose of this old regulation is to help in the control of commercial photography. I am considering, as part of a general review of parks regulations, how this control could be maintained without interference with amateur photographers.

Mr. Dodds: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to look at the matter again, but does he appreciate that it is a bit of a nuisance for visitors to have to apply for permits? Is he aware that many commercial people have applied for permits and have gained admission very easily, so that what he seeks to avoid is not prevented by this method?

Sir D. Eccles: The matter does want looking at again.

Factory Building

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Works the value of factory building authorised in 1953; and what was the value of work completed.

Sir D. Eccles: The value of factory building licensed in 1953 was £170,072,000. I am unable to give the contract value of factory buildings completed during the year. The amount of

work done during the year is estimated, on the basis of the figures for the first 11 months, at £111 million.

Sir I. Fraser: Does the value of the work accomplished compare favourably with the amount of work held up or refused? Can it be said that industry generally has got more or less what it wants?

Sir D. Eccles: Licences for factories are not now being held up. The manufacturer has, of course, to go to the Board of Trade and clear the distribution of industry procedure.

Whitehall Offices (Open Fires)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that raw bituminous coal is burned in the grates in the offices of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in Whitehall and that a serious nuisance thereby occurs; and what steps he proposes to take in order to abate this nuisance.

Sir D. Eccles: Bituminous coal is the most suitable fuel for the remaining open grates in Government offices, Great George Street. Modernisation of the heating services in the building is in progress, and by the end of 1957 the use of open fires should have ceased.

Mr. Hardy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread feeling against smoke pollution in various parts of this country? Does he think it will encourage local authorities to proceed with their ideas of providing smokeless zones when the Government of the day were not prepared to show them some example by way of improving conditions in London, as during the fog or "smog" last year?

Sir D. Eccles: Out of 987 rooms, only 172 are left with open grates, and they are only suitable for burning ordinary coal. If we were to provide "Coalite," we should have to pay nearly double for it, and I think the best thing is to get on with changing the system.

Requisitioned Property, Scotland

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Works to give figures to show what reduction there has been over the last 12 months in the amount of requisitioned property held by his Department


in Scotland; and whether he will forecast the date by which all such property will have been returned to its owners.

Sir D. Eccles: During the last 12 months, the total area of buildings and land derequisitioned by my Department in Scotland was 186,128 square feet and 243 acres, respectively. I am anxious to release all requisitioned property held by my Department, but I cannot yet say by what date the process will be completed.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Would my right hon. Friend care to make a guess at the date? Will it be in a year's time, or two years, or how soon?

Sir D. Eccles: I think the only useful information that I can give to my hon. and gallant Friend is that I hope that a further 180,000 sq. ft. and a further 180 acres will be released this year. There are now nearly 400,000 sq. ft. and 790 acres left on requisition, so that we are getting on.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that many of the offices occupied by his Department in Edinburgh are in a type of building which is now becoming vacant, and that a great many of these places are empty? Is he not aware that it might be a considerable waste to build new buildings in order to vacate property which will become empty and simply an eyesore to the public?

Sir D. Eccles: If the right hon. Gentleman will let me have details of empty office buildings in Edinburgh, I should be much obliged.

Carlton House Terrace (Use)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Works whether he will reconsider the decision to acquire the whole of Carlton House Terrace for rebuilding as a new Foreign Office; and whether, in view of the fact that it has now been found practical to rebuild as flats and other premises without altering the Nash front, he will so develop it himself or dispose of the site to a commercial enterprise who will.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir; the Foreign Office needs a new building near Whitehall. As regards the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion about flats, the Commissioners of Crown Lands, who own the site, consider, and I agree, that the best use for the site would be as offices.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that this decision was entered into at a time when it was thought that it was impracticable to do anything with this building commercially without pulling down the front? Surely it has now been found practicable to alter the building and make proper commercial use of it, and is it not therefore absurd to have one of the most valuable sites in the world occupied by rows and rows of clerks opening unceasing telegrams?

Sir D. Eccles: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is now accepted that this building could be used commercially. I do not think it could. In any case, the Foreign Office is scattered about London now, and it would be greatly to the advantage of their work if we could concentrate them in one place.

Mr. Assheton: Am I right in understanding the Minister to say that it is intended to pull down Carlton House Terrace?

Sir D. Eccles: The façade will be preserved.

Condemned Trees, Kensington Gardens

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Minister of Works how many elms in Kensington Gardens have been cut down; how many are to be cut down; what steps are taken to ensure that a tree is dangerous or diseased before it is cut down; and what steps have been taken in the past and are being taken now to replace condemned trees.

Sir D. Eccles: I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies of 14th July, 1953, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) and of 1st December, 1953, to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams). Out of about 4,000 trees in Kensington Gardens, some 400 elms have been or are shortly to be felled. Advice on the trees was obtained from the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, and Edinburgh, and from the Department of Forestry at Oxford University. The rotten state of the trees which have been felled has fully confirmed what the experts told me. It may be that in the past more replanting should have been done. In future, this work will be carried out continuously.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not a fact that a fairly high proportion of the trees that were cut down proved to be perfectly sound on inspection?

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir.

Westminster Hall (Concerts)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Minister of Works whether, in the light of experience gained at the concert held in Westminster Hall on 17th December, he can see his way to arranging or permitting a few further concerts during the present year; and whether some of these might be on Mondays or other days when the House is sitting.

Sir D. Eccles: The Christmas carols which were sung in Westminster Hall by the Board of Trade choir gave great pleasure. I am ready to allow, in consultation with the other authorities of the Palace of Westminster, one or two more concerts during the year.

Sir R. Acland: Do you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that it was largely owing to the presence of your son in the choir that the singing was of such a high order?

Trafalgar Square (Trading Licences)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Works how many licences he has granted to sell bird food and take photographs in Trafalgar Square.

Sir D. Eccles: There are two licences in force for corn-selling and six for photography.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does not the Minister think that he ought to remove the shackles of monopoly and allow a little competition in the matter?

Sir D. Eccles: It appears to satisfy both the pigeons and the public.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY

Development

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Works if he will now make a further statement on recent advances in the development of the uses of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.

Sir D. Eccles: I have at present nothing to add to the very full statement made

by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council in another place on 14th December, 1953; but it will be my aim to keep the House informed of our progress in this matter.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say whether atomic energy is yet practicable for the propulsion of ships, particularly fishing trawlers? That was not dealt with in the statement in another place.

Sir D. Eccles: I cannot answer that without notice.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any announcement about the projected atomic energy breeder station in the North of Scotland? Has he any idea when a decision will be reached about this important project?

Sir D. Eccles: When a decision is reached, a statement will be made to the House, and I hope it will not be too long before that happens.

Uranium and Thorium Supplies

Mr. R. Harris: asked the Minister of Works what survey has been made of the quantities of economically recoverable uranium and thorium in this country and in the colonial overseas countries; how much has already been utilised; what is the estimated consumption for the next 12 months; and what is the cost per pound of extracted material.

Sir D. Eccles: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on 9th November, 1953, in respect of survey work in the United Kingdom; and to that given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) on 10th December, 1952, in respect of Northern Rhodesia. Surveys of other colonial territories have been made, but no deposits have yet been discovered which would justify mining at the present time. I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give any figures of utilisation or cost.

Mr. Harris: Who is responsible for carrying out the surveys now? Is it the Ministry of Works, the new Atomic Energy Corporation, or some United Nations body?

Sir D. Eccles: At the present time the Lord President of the Council is the Minister responsible.

Security Procedure, Risley

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Works what disciplinary action has been or will be taken against Security Officer Smith arising from this officer's conduct of inquiries about employees at his Department's establishment at Risley, Lancashire.

Sir D. Eccles: Complaints about this officer have been fully examined. It is clear that in the course of his investigations he made certain errors. For these he has already been reprimanded.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this particular case was not an isolated one? Is he aware that another security officer—and this is why I asked the Question about disciplinary action in this case—who was investigating the conduct of a woman executive officer in the Civil Service made inquiries of her newsagent as to what papers she read and of her trades people to find out whether she owed them any money? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if his attention is drawn to information of this kind, he will take the strongest action against these security officers?

Sir D. Eccles: I shall be very glad to convey to my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council any information which the hon. Member will give to me.

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Works how many security questionnaires have been completed by employees at the Risley establishment; what percentage of the total remain to be screened; and in how many cases further investigation or action has been found necessary.

Sir D. Eccles: The agreed security procedure is in operation at the Risley establishment as at other establishments of the Department of Atomic Energy. The hon. Member will appreciate that it is not in the public interest that details of this work should be disclosed.

Mr. Griffiths: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that a very large number of people working in these establishments strongly object to this procedure,

and that their trade unions are very worried about the procedure? Unless he can convince the House of the usefulness of this procedure, why on earth should this invasion of private citizens' rights continue?

Sir D. Eccles: All these people know that they are working on very secret processes, and they must realise that it is the duty of the Government to take steps to keep that information secret.

Mr. Rankin: Is it due to the secrecy of this information that the Minister is not aware that atomic energy is now being used in the propulsion of submarines? Why, then, cannot it be applied to trawlers?

Sir D. Eccles: I said that I would look into that question. All these men are in touch with secret information which would be of benefit to those who wish to pry into our secrets.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Scottish Port Workers (Transfers)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour how many Scottish port workers have been transferred from port to port in Scotland to facilitate the loading and discharge of vessels; which ports were involved; what are the figures for each; how many of such port workers were on a daily basis; how many on a period basis; if he will state the amount of time saved by this arrangement of transfers; and what is the net effect on efficiency, costs and wages.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): As the reply to the first part of the Question contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate them in the Official Report. With regard to the remainder of the Question, I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. and learned Member on 27th October last.

Mr. Hughes: Has not the operation of this scheme, which was introduced by the previous Government, greatly improved relations between those who actually do the work and those who employ them to do it?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes Sir; I think it is going very well.

Following are the figures:

Transfers between Scottish Ports between 23rd November, 1953 and 16th January, 1954


Port
Daily Transfers


In
Out


Ayr
—
138


Troon
19
53


Irvine
58
59


Ardrossan
199
19


Greenock
—
643


Glasgow*
678
7


Aberdeen
—
147


Dundee
726
181


Tayport
229
—


Methil
486
295


Kirkcaldy
183
371


Burntisland
19
838


Grangemouth
247
625


Bo'ness
77
505


Leith
992
32


Total
3,913
3,913


* In addition to the figures quoted there were 5,827 daily transfers between the five different sectors within the Port of Glasgow. There were no transfers on a period basis during the weeks in question.

Hotel Workers (Colour Bar)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour what approaches have been made to his Department's employment exchanges by the management of a West-End hotel, of which he is aware, during the last 12 months for kitchen and other staffs; if he is aware that the management have insisted that they will not take coloured people; and what was the nature of the reply given by his officers.

Mr. Watkinson: I am aware that at least one hotel in the West End of London will not engage coloured workers in a few occupations. This hotel makes regular use of the employment exchange service which, in accordance with general practice, takes note of employers' special requirements.

Mr. Lewis: Is that the Green Park Hotel, which operates the colour bar against visitors? Are we to take it that the Green Park Hotel do not allow any coloured workers to do the menial jobs in the kitchen? Do they insist that they will not take on any coloured workers? Can we have some further explanation?

Mr. Watkinson: It is not for me to pronounce on individual cases but to make it plain that the employment exchange service of the Ministry of Labour does not exercise any discrimination on grounds of race or colour.

Mr. Lewis: What happens if a coloured worker is inadvertently sent to this hotel and the management refuse? What advice does the Minister give to the management about taking on staff?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to put that question down.

Industrial Relations

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the number of workers who are awaiting the results of wage applications made on their behalf by their respective trade unions and the growing industrial unrest that is being experienced in industry generally; and what plans the Government have to bring about a reduction in the cost of living and thereby peace in industry.

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are aware that important wage negotiations are in progress. We are confident that the employers' and workers' representatives concerned are fully conscious of their responsibilities and will take full account of the national interest.
We are also aware that industrial unrest can most successfully be avoided by effective joint negotiation. As hon. Members know, much is being quietly achieved in this field. During 1953, the cost of living has been steadier—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—than in any recent year and, indeed, the index number of food prices has shown a decline in the past few months. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] May I get on? But the cost of living is not the only factor which enters into industrial negotiations, although it is important that the facts should be known to the parties about this as about all other relevant matters. It is my right hon. and learned Friend's hope, and that of Her Majesty's Government, that, with good will from all concerned, fair settlements will be arrived at that will ensure the maintenance of normal close and friendly relations in industry. Such


relations are essential if we are to attain higher levels of productivity and efficiency.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister honestly, sincerely and truly believe that statement that his officials have given him? If so, will he go out and meet some of the workers and the trade union leaders, and particularly housewives, because they will tell him that he has got all his facts and figures wrong and that the price of food is continually rising. [Hon. Members: "No."] That is the reason for this Question. Will he consult with the Trades Union Congress to get some correct facts on the position?

Mr. Watkinson: This is a very important matter, and I hope that this House will not try to play party politics—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—about matters of fact. It is the duty of my Ministry to state the facts, and I have taken steps to see that they are facts. I hope that no hon. Member on either side of this House will accuse the Ministry of Labour of partiality on the part of its officials or, I hope, on the part of its present political heads. I am satisfied that the statement I have made is fair and correct. The food part of the Index has fallen in the last six months from 113·8 to 109·6. I am not trying to make any party political point out of this but to state facts, and they are still facts whether hon. Members like them or not. The last point I want to make is that the Interim Index of Retail Prices was started in 1947 under the Socialist Government and that the wages of three million people depend upon its accuracy.

Mr. Stokes: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say about the effect of the drop in the price of eggs, is it not a fact that, in the case of bread, butter, cheese, rice and tea, what cost 10s. in October, 1951, now costs 15s., having gone up 50 per cent.?

Mr. Watkinson: It is not the duty of the Ministry of Labour to pick out separate items in order to try to prove or disprove any particular case. It is our duty and my duty to give the figures. I have given the figures of the 42 per cent. of the Index which is devoted to food pro-

ducts, the widest range that goes into the normal shopping basket. It is that part of the Index which has declined.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot go on debating these matters at Question time.

Retail Prices Index

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour on what date the Scientific Committee last met to discuss the Index of Retail Prices.

Mr. Watkinson: The Retail Prices Index Technical Committee last met on 29th February, 1952, but there was subsequent correspondence with the members, concerning the plans for the household expenditure inquiry. The Cost of Living Advisory Committee last met on 3rd November, 1952, for the purpose of giving final approval to these plans.

Mr. Lee: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the scientific committee, which reported in March, 1952, asked for certain new weightings which they described as "temporary expedients" of only approximate merit? Would he not agree that since then there has been a most revolutionary movement because of the slashing of £100 million of food subsidies, which means for the foods which normally have to be bought most often—as people have to eat three times a day—that the weighting system is probably now obsolete? Would it not be a very good thing if the Minister were to call the Committee together and ask for the relevance of these weightings in the changed conditions which obtain, owing to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Watkinson: We always keep this Index under review and we shall be only too pleased to look at any time at any matters raised by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the underlying inference is not that this is some sort of false index. It is as accurate as any impartial body can possible make it. It is just as well to establish that, because as I have already said, three million workers depend upon it. It has never, in its long history, been attacked on the ground that it is either unfair or inaccurate.

Registered Dockers, Merseyside

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Labour how many registered dockers were surplus to requirement on Mersey-side each day from 1st January, 1954, to date.

Mr. Watkinson: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the Official Report.

Mrs. Braddock: Can the Minister tell us the highest daily surplus that he has

Merseyside Ports


Date
Surplus Labour proving attendance


Liverpool
Birkenhead
Bromborough
Total Merseyside Ports
Surplus expressed as percentage of Registers


1954


January 1st
…
84
8
87
179
1·1


January 2nd
…
2,173
7
40
2,220
13·7


January 4th
…
1,625
11
66
1,702
10·5


January 5th
…
1,095
171
98
1,364
8·4


January 6th
…
1,545
109
81
1,735
10·6


January 7th
…
1,060
88
59
1,207
7·4


January 8th
…
505
—
48
553
3·4


January 9th
…
2,760
346
81
3,187
19·6


January 11th
…
728
479
127
1,334
8·2


January 12th
…
1,443
348
32
1,823
11·2


January 13th
…
2,120
120
—
2,240
13·8


January 14th
…
1,932
215
57
2,204
13·6


January 15th
…
74
4
—
78
0·5


January 16th
…
1,301
15
—
1,316
8·1


January 18th
…
425
4
—
429
2·6


January 19th
…
183
1
—
184
1·1


January 20th
…
285
235
—
520
3·2


January 21st
…
847
259
—
1,106
6·8

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Personal Case

17. Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour his intentions with regard to the conscription of the Cardiff man, whose name has been supplied to him, who has been classified in medical category grade I for National Service despite the fact that he has been in attendance at the Cathedral Road Tuberculosis Clinic for six years, has had three lung operations, and is suffering from a rheumatic heart.

Mr. Watkinson: The tuberculosis clinic has confirmed that there is no evidence of present disease. The lung

on his list? As he is aware, that very large surplus of dockers on Merseyside is causing very great concern in the industry. What steps is he taking to deal with the position?

Mr. Watkinson: The average daily surplus for the group during the year was 1,299, as compared with 3,593 in the same period last year. I will send the hon. Lady full details.

Following are the figures:

operations in early infancy have no present significance, and there is no evidence that rheumatic fever at the same time has had any residual effect on the heart condition. The man's call-up is suspended to permit inquiry into further statements by his mother, and I hope my readiness to make such inquiries will reassure the hon. Member and the House of my earnest desire not to call up any man of whose fitness for service there is any doubt. My final decision must, however, be based on the best available medical evidence.

Mr. Thomas: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reasonable statement, may I ask whether he is aware that this


action has only been taken following upon the Question appearing on the Order Paper of the House, that he himself sent me a letter, when I had brought all these facts to his notice, still insisting that the man must do his service, and finally that I am very grateful that publicity has led to action?

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, all we want to do is to get these things right.

Medical Board Members (Age)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Labour the average age of the members serving on the medical boards set up under the National Service Acts.

Mr. Watkinson: The average age of members serving on National Service medical boards is 53 years.

Conscientious Objectors Tribunals

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Labour if he is willing to extend the basis of representation on conscientious objectors tribunals to include ministers of religion representative of various denominations.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The present method of appointment, as laid down in the Fourth Schedule to the National Service Act, 1948, has proved satisfactory in practice, and I should not be in favour of altering it.

Mr. Craddock: Is it not a fact that Lords Spiritual and Temporal are part of our State machinery? Furthermore, if we have ministers of religion in the Forces attending to the spiritual requirements of the men, surely it is time that the Minister should be just to the spiritual laws.

Mr. Watkinson: We went very fully into this in debate not long ago, when I gave, in detail, the reasons why we think the present composition of the tribunal was as fair as we could make it.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction with much of the questioning done in local tribunals, especially in regard to religious objectors? Will he seriously consider whether people more expert, and more understanding of such issues, should not be given a chance to sit on the tribunals?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Member misunderstands me. There is no bar at present to the appointment of a member who happens to be a minister of religion. In fact, we have recently appointed one to the London local tribunal.

22. Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Labour if he will amend the National Service Act, 1948, so as to give him power, by regulation, to lay down general principles upon which such tribunals are to proceed in deciding whether an objector is to remain registered in the register of conscientious objectors.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The National Service Acts deliberately placed on the independent tribunals the sole responsibility for deciding these cases. In my view, it would be a retrograde step to ask Parliament to empower my right hon. and learned Friend to fetter their judgment by regulations.

Mr. Craddock: Is the Minister aware that there is wide disparity in the sentences meted out by the tribunals to conscientious objectors for the same offence, and therefore would it not be a good thing if the Minister kindly looked into this again so that proper guidance might be given to tribunals when making their decisions?

Mr. Watkinson: We shall certainly look at it again, but I cannot give any promises.

Exemptions

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour what percentage of young people who registered for military service in 1953 were subsequently granted exemption from National Service.

Mr. Watkinson: The National Service Acts do not empower my right hon. and learned Friend to grant exemption to any person who is liable under those Acts, but on the assumption that the hon. Member has deferment in mind, I am sending him a copy of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for November, 1953, which contains information relating to the latest count on 12th October, 1953. National Service statistics based on the year of registration are not available.

Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply, but in view of the fact that 30 per cent, of young men of military age do no service because they are covered by the industry in which they serve, does he not think that it is straining the argument that conscription is the fairest way of calling people to the Colours when such a large proportion are never called?

Mr. Watkinson: After I have sent the hon. Member these figures perhaps he would like to put down a Question. I quite agree that there is a certain amount of misunderstanding about this, and it might be a good thing to get it cleared up.

Teachers

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour how many qualified teachers were called to the Colours straight from college, and before beginning teaching, in each of the years 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953, respectively.

Mr. Watkinson: Such information is not readily available, but I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Wind-blown Timber (Clearance)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the imminence of spring and of necessary seasonal farm work makes urgent the clearance of fallen timber from Aberdeenshire farms; and if he will now make a further statement on the progress of this work.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any further report to give of the progress in regard to the clearance of wind-blown timber as a result of last year's storms.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 20th October last, the need for the speedy clearance of the wind-blown timber is fully realised and everything possible is being done to this end. With permission, I shall circulate in the Official Report a full statement of the progress made, but the House may be interested to know that about two

million cubic feet of timber is being cleared each month, and if this rate can be maintained the bulk of the timber will be cleared within the estimated period of two years.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that under the cover of this fallen timber have developed large colonies of rabbits which sally forth and damage the growing crops, and what does he intend to do to protect those crops?

Mr. Snadden: That is really a separate question. The obvious answer is to get the timber out of the way so as to get at the rabbits.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Does the Minister know that a great many smaller areas and estates are finding it impossible to get contractors to undertake clearance of the timber because the contractors prefer to go to the large areas where there is steadier work? What is the policy of his Department in this matter?

Mr. Snadden: We are doing our best to group the smaller estates together so as to provide units more attractive to the merchants, but I agree that there are still isolated areas—some inaccessible—where we find a satisfactory solution difficult.

Mr. Assheton: Has my hon. Friend any information as to the truth of the statement in the Question that spring is imminent in Aberdeenshire?

Following is the statement:
The most up-to-date estimate of the volume blown is 47¾ million cubic feet. Arrangements for working all except l½ million cubic feet have been made. A part of the balance is in small lots, difficult to work, and of indifferent quality.
The volume of blown limber already felled and extracted to roadside is approximately 20 million cubic feet. The favourable weather experienced has enabled the rate of felling and extraction to be maintained during the winter months at approximately 2 million cubic feet per month. Mills within the blown area are working to capacity. Approximately 2 million cubic feet of round logs have been transported to mills outside the affected area under the transport assistance arrangements made by the Government. The transport assistance rates have now been increased in order further to encourage the movement of logs. The movement to England and Wales of mining timber surplus to the requirements of the Scottish coalfield is proceeding, also under freight assistance arrangements made by the Government, and to date orders have been placed for the movement of some 2 million cubic feet in this way.


Also owing to favourable weather the position regarding deterioration of the timber still remaining to fell and extract is better than had been considered probable.
Although in the case of some estates work is behindhand, I feel that viewed as a whole progress is as great as could reasonably have been expected and reflects credit on those engaged in the operation.

Transport Costs

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the policy of his Department concerning high transport costs; and what action he proposes to take.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): The transport undertakings must of course, follow a policy of making charges which will cover their outgoings. My right hon. Friend is aware that transport costs are a matter of concern in the North of Scotland, and he is in close touch with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in considering the current proposal of the British Transport Commission for an increase in freight rates.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can my hon. Friend say whether his right hon. Friend is continuing to press the Transport Commission to introduce a tapering charges scheme? Does he realise that as far as concerns the fishing industry in Aberdeen—the main fishing port of Scotland—these high transport costs are really getting very serious indeed, and may well mean the blocking of the renewal of the fleet and, possibly, a steady decline for a number of years? What does his Department propose to do?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that, following an initial exploratory discussion about the possibility of reduced rates for fish traffic by rail from Aberdeen, a committee consisting of representatives of the Aberdeen Fish Curers' and Merchants Association and of British Railways has been set up to go further into the matter. No information as to the course of these discussions is as yet available.

River Forth (Pollution)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the River Forth is polluted to such an extent that it causes destruction to many salmon; and how soon this problem is likely to be tackled.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I am aware that the pollution of the Forth presents a serious problem. The question will be one for the Forth River Purification Board which my right hon. Friend has recently established and which I hope will be functioning within the next few months.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that the Forth has been recently described by one of the officials as a sink of filth, and that it would be much easier to preserve the fish by getting rid of the pollution than by having the vendetta against a few fishermen which seems to be pursued by the Forth River Purification Board?

Communist Teachers (Police Inquiries)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how long the police have been allowed to enter educational establishments for the purpose of investigating the activities of teachers with Communistic political convictions, and whether he will put a stop to such practices forthwith.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: It would be contrary to police practice to conduct investigations in this way and I know of no recent case in which they have done so.

Mr. Hamilton: I know of one such case. Does the Minister realise that, according to the headmaster who gave me the information, two plain clothes policemen recently entered his school and, without informing the individual concerned, asked about his Communistic affiliations as they affected his teaching? Will the Minister give specific instructions to the police force in Scotland that this practice must cease forthwith, and does not this, and other cases which I shall produce very soon, emphasise the absolute importance of having an investigation or inquiry into police methods in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I have no reason to believe that such an inquiry is desirable, but if the hon. Member can give particulars of the single case he has in mind, or others he may yet bring forward, we shall look at them.

Mr. Hamilton: The headmaster concerned has asked me not to reveal his name because he fears victimisation, but


is the hon Gentleman aware that some of my constituents, other than teachers, have been approached by the police and asked about certain Communists in the area, and will he make an attempt to stop this?

Mr. Stewart: It is quite impossible for the hon. Member to ask us to do what he is asking if he does not give the evidence.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does not my hon. Friend think it highly undesirable that any Communist should be teaching the children of Great Britain?

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Clyde Valley (Flooding)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will appoint a committee to investigate the related problems of water control, flooding, soil erosion and mineral subsidence in the valley of the Clyde, and to examine the desirability of establishing a Clyde Valley Catchment Board.

Mr. Snadden: As was indicated in a previous reply on 17th December, 1953, my right hon. Friend considers that the setting up of a catchment board for the Clyde Valley at this stage would be premature. The difficulty in regard to the Clyde area, as elsewhere in Scotland where flooding conditions exist, is the present lack of legislative powers to carry out remedial works, and an investigation of the technical questions involved would not in itself open up the way to a solution of the problem.

Mr. Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware that if we pressed ahead on the technical preparations and were able to assemble the hydrographic data now it would be possible to press on with remedial measures later on? At present, no single body has power to inquire into the relative factors throughout the Clyde Valley. Will he have another look at this matter?

Mr. Snadden: It would not be practicable for us to set up a committee to examine the problems of the Clyde alone. There are other areas in Scotland where

flooding takes place, and to set up a committee with a remit for the whole of Scotland would raise very great difficulties. I think we should wait.

Land Drainage

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to introduce drainage legislation which will enable steps to be taken to prevent the flooding of houses and agricultural land.

Mr. Snadden: As I indicated to the hon. Member in a reply given on 17th November, 1953, the discussions with the interested bodies have not yet been concluded, and I am therefore unable to make a statement at present.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Joint Under-secretary not aware that many of our local authorities, farmers and householders are very disturbed at the lack of activity by the Government in connection with recurring flooding throughout Scotland? Does he not think that the negligence in this matter is deplorable? It is causing a loss of food production; many homes are flooded annually, and great expense is caused to local authorities each year because there is as yet no indication that this problem will be tackled in a realistic fashion.

Mr. Snadden: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is really no lack of activity on the part of the Government. Nothing can be done in the particular area in which he is interested without further legislation. We are now in consultation with the various interests concerned—farmers, landowners and local authorities—but, until we get agreement on the methods to be employed, it is impossible for us to take the steps required.

Mr. Manuel: Does not the Joint Under-Secretary agree that, although I have had this reply very many times, on the last occasion he indicated that something would be done this Session? That promise has now receded. Can he give any indication when legislation is likely to be introduced to deal with this problem?

Mr. Snadden: I cannot give any date.

Highland Development Area

Mr. Brooman-White: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new industrial enterprises have been


established in the Highland Development Area in the last three years; and what alteration of policy or readjustment of Departmental responsibilities it is proposed to make to improve this position.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: As regards the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 14th December. It is the Government's policy to encourage the development of suitable industrial projects in the Highland Development Area. My right hon. Friend is in the closest touch with the President of the Board of Trade about this, but I should emphasise that much must depend on the willingness of industrialists to establish themselves there.

Mr. Brooman-White: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the main object of this operation is to support the population and prosperity which is necessary for healthy agriculture in the Highlands? As there has been virtually no development, might not more responsibility be given to agricultural authorities rather than to the Board of Trade, which is, not unnaturally, preoccupied with other priorities?

Mr. Nabarro: Scrap the hydro-electric scheme.

Mr. Brooman-White: I beg to give notice that I shall seek an opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Industrial Development Sites, Edinburgh and Leith

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sites are available in Edinburgh and Leith for industrial development.

Commander Galbraith: There are 16 acres of land at Sighthill and 17 acres at Granton available for industrial development. The Corporation of Edinburgh's development plan, which is at present before my right hon. Friend proposes the provision during the next 20 years of 354·5 acres of new industrial sites, of which 37·5 acres would be in Leith and Seafield districts. The plan also proposes, in the same period, the clearance for industrial use of about 69 acres at present mostly occupied by obsolete or obsolescent buildings, of which 18·2 acres are in Leith.

Mr. Hoy: In view of these figures and the high level of unemployment in Scotland generally, can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what steps his Department are taking to bring these sites to the notice of industrialists?

Commander Galbraith: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put down a Question to that effect.

Dundee School of Economics

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Dundee School of Economics to be taken over by the University of St. Andrew.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The relevant Section of the Act cannot be brought into force until the university court has made arrangements with the town council about the transfer of the school and the statutory commissioners have made any necessary ordinances. I cannot yet say when this will be.

Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Member aware that the Dundee Education Committee has expressed grave anxiety about the way this seems to be taking place and the uncertainty which results in this vital field of university education in Dundee?

Arrested Person, Coatbridge (Interview)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations were made to the Coatbridge police for permission to interview Hugh Green, arrested on 22nd November, before his conviction on 23rd November; by whom were the representations made; and what was the nature of the reply.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am informed that no such representations were made.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has already given me that reply and that we are ready to submit incontrovertible evidence that arrangements were made, and of the names of the persons in the police office to whom they were made? Will he look into the matter further if he is supplied with this further information?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, my right hon. Friend will be very ready to look at any evidence the hon. Lady cares to present to him.

Alternative Employment, Newmains (Deputation)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to meet the representations made by the deputation from Newmains to the Minister of State.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: A number of suggestions for providing alternative employment for some of the men who were employed at Coltness Foundry have been taken up urgently with the departments and authorities concerned, and my right hon. Friend will communicate with the hon. Lady as soon as possible.

Miss Herbison: Is the Joint Undersecretary of State aware that I have in my hand a letter of 21st January in which he gave me the same information. Is he also aware that the reply which he has given today strengthens my fears, and certainly the fears of my constituents, that Ministers at the Scottish Office are dealing in a complacent way with these matters? Surely I and my constituents had a right to expect that there would be some information available at this moment?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady has no right to say that. There is no complacency at all. We are most anxious about the situation there. We have pressed forward our inquiries with other Departments, which, indeed, we must do, with all urgency. I assure the hon. Lady that any representations she cares to make to us will find us most sympathetic.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, SCOTLAND

Empty Properties, Glasgow

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to approve the request made to him by the Glasgow Corporation for authority to requisition certain empty houses to the number of approximately 1,500 in view of the number of homeless in Glasgow at the present time.

Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has informed the Corporation that he cannot accede to their request.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that people in Glasgow are being sent to prison for squatting in vacant houses, is it not possible for the Secretary of State to get in touch with the Glasgow Corporation to decrease this very serious local problem? Can the Joint Under-Secretary say what is to be done about it?

Commander Galbraith: I would remind the hon. Member that local authorities need not rely on private citizens in order to meet their housing needs. They have adequate powers to acquire houses, and my right hon. Friend has brought this fact to the notice of the Glasgow Corporation.

Repairs and Rents Bill

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many protests he has received from local authorities against the Housing Repairs and Rents (Scotland) Bill.

Commander Galbraith: Up to and including Monday, 25th January, my right hon. Friend has received protests of a general nature against the Bill from 15 local authorities (including three district councils). Representations have also been made to him on specific points in the Bill by six other local authorities.

Mr. Manuel: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware that many local authorities in Scotland have not yet had an opportunity of coming to a decision on this Bill, but have not the representations which he has received given a clear indication that local authorities, generally, are not anxious to have this Bill? Even at this late date, will he not consider withdrawing the Bill because of the representations he has received and will continue to receive?

Commander Galbraith: No, Sir.

Glasgow Overspill Population

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to give his decision on the re quest made to him by the Clyde Valley Planning and Redevelopment Committee that a new town be built at Cumbernauld, Stirlingshire, to deal with Glasgow's housing problem.

Commander Galbraith: No, Sir. The Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee is still considering the machinery


it would wish to recommend for carrying out this and other developments which it may propose for dealing with Glasgow's overspill. Pending receipt of these recommendations, which we hope to have soon, my right hon. Friend has arranged for a technical examination of the Cumbernauld area to assess its suitability for the proposed development.

Sub-standard Houses

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many substandard houses there are in Leith; and if he will give an estimate of what percentage this is of the houses coming within the control of the Rent Restriction Acts;

(2) how many sub-standard houses there are in the city of Edinburgh; and if he will give an estimate of what percentage this is of the houses coming within the control of the Rent Restriction Acts.

Commander Galbraith: A survey by Edinburgh Corporation in 1946 showed that 6,781 houses could be regarded as unfit and 39,108 as sub-standard but not unfit. Of these houses, 1,733 and 8,994 respectively were in Leith. As regards the second part of the Questions, no information is available on which to base any reliable estimate.

Mr. Hoy: In view of these very large figures, can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what proportion of these houses fall to be dealt with under the new Housing Repairs and Rents (Scotland) Bill, and how much it is going to take to put them into a habitable condition?

Commander Galbraith: As I said previously, no definite information is available on that matter.

Mr. Hoy: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not have this information, how did he produce this Bill which is supposed to deal with the problem, and how does he know what the problem is?

Compulsory Purchase Orders

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that local authorities are refusing to exercise their powers to take over vacant houses by acquisition on the advice of their legal advisers that such procedure would

necessitate many months of delay and that the price fixed by arbitration or the district valuer would be on the present high level of exploitation value of vacant possession; and if he will make a statement.

Commander Galbraith: I assume that the hon. Lady refers to the statutory procedure for the compulsory purchase of houses. My right hon. Friend has received no representations that this procedure involves undue delay or that the statutory provisions for determining the purchase price are inequitable.

Mrs. Mann: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether any local authorities have, of late, used their powers to acquire and, if not, has he asked them why they have not done so?

Commander Galbraith: Perhaps the hon. Lady will put down a Question to that effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider transferring Civil Defence from the Home Office to the Minister of Defence so that all the defence services can be better coordinated.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the disclosures in the Report of the Select Committee on the inefficiency and inadequacy of Civil Defence measures to protect the civil population of this country in the event of atomic bomb attack, he will appoint a new Minister of Cabinet rank with the sole duty of dealing with the problems of Civil Defence.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): No, Sir. Experience before, during and since the last war has shown conclusively that the main Civil Defence work is so closely linked with the maintenance of law and order and the work of local authorities that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland must be the focal points for preparations and for operational control in the event of war. There has, of course, to be close liaison between the fighting Services and


those engaged in Civil Defence, but this can be effectively secured, in our opinion, by consultations between Ministers and the services concerned.

Brigadier Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary has a very large task on his plate and that the Civil Defence services would be better directed by someone else?

Mr. Hughes: Has the Prime Minister read the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates on the Civil Defence services? Does he realise that they are in a state of confusion? Has he forgotten his warning to the House that as a result of the American bombers being here the population of this country is in an infinitely more dangerous position than it was in the last war? Is he going to allow the civil population to be sacrificed in the interests of extortionate military expenditure?

The Prime Minister: Lots of points are raised in that supplementary question. I am astonished, I must say, that the hon. Member should suggest that I have not read that Report. This matter has been very carefully considered as between the civil and military authorities. We found it worked very satisfactorily—or more or lesssatisfactorily—in the war, and I think the Home Secretary is the Minister who should be in charge of it.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as one who experienced this office in the wartime Government of which he was Prime Minister, I am quite sure he is right? It is related to security in general; it is related to local government; and all the necessary relationships with the active defence were arranged and can be arranged. I would urge him to stand firm upon the point.

The Prime Minister: I assure the right hon. Gentleman—I almost said my right hon. Friend, as he was in those days—I shall stand firm as a rock.

Mr. Strachey: Now we are assured that the Prime Minister has read this Report, can he tell us he is going to take some action in view of the very serious situation it discloses of the inefficiency of the present arrangements, whatever the proper arrangements may be?

The Prime Minister: The Report is being most carefully studied by the Departments, and by none more than the Home Office. Of course, undoubtedly, what is needed to make a very keen voluntary effort in Civil Defence is a sense of alarm, of danger. Without that it is difficult, and as the feeling that, perhaps, things are a little better and the outlook a little clearer grows in the land, it has that disadvantage that people do not feel the same need to be prepared for immediate war. Well, I think we shall have to put up with that.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies—from both sides of the House—I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (NEW RIFLE)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether, before deciding to accept the new Belgian rifle, he consulted with the United States Government; and whether the United States Government are in agreement with the British decision.

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. I had three Questions down to the Prime Minister on this subject which were printed on the Notice Paper yesterday. They were printed in an order different from that which I requested. When I asked the Clerk at the Table if I could alter the order I was told no rearrangement was possible at that late hour. Further, late last night the Prime Minister, who felt understandably that he would be embarrassed by answering the Questions, rearranged the Questions to such an extent that they are now scattered to the four corners of the Order Paper. They are Questions Nos. 79, 96 and 97. I was not informed of this until this morning.
All I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, is whether the Prime Minister had the right at a late hour last night to rearrange the Order Paper, when I was not allowed to rearrange even my own Questions, and also the wording of one of the Questions. Surely the Prime Minister, as a Member of this House, does not have any more right than any other Member with regard to the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: As to rearranging the Order Paper, I have never known that function undertaken by any Department, but this appears to be a question of some transference of Questions asked of the Prime Minister to a Department. I have previously stated that that is entirely a matter for Ministers, over which I have no control. The hon. Member also complains that he did not hear about this until this morning. I have previously expressed the opinion—which is all I can do—that as long notice as possible should be given to the hon. Member concerned if Questions are transferred.

The Prime Minister: I am very sorry if any inconvenience has been caused, but the Questions were of a highly detailed and technical character, and had to be examined by the Departments concerned. It was only when I saw the proposed answers that I realised that they opened no new or important points of principle, and, therefore, I thought they should be transferred to the Departments technically responsible.
Now, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), whose excursions into other fields I have admired, while the decision to adopt the Belgian rifle rested entirely with Her Majesty's Government, the United States military authorities have been kept fully informed. I have reason to believe that they concur in out view.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States authorities have stated that they have no use for the new Belgian rifle at present, and probably not for many years, because they are fully equipped with their present rifle? Is he also aware that last week, in reply to Questions on this subject, he argued that standardisation was necessary. If the United States authorities are not to use the Belgian rifle, where does standardisation come in? Incidentally, may I ask him why, when he tested the Belgian rifle yesterday, he did not take the opportunity of testing the new British rifle? Why this preference for foreign products?

The Prime Minister: I did test the new British rifle last year, but I do not pretend to be an expert on these matters. The recommendations on which I have

acted have been made under the responsibility of the War Office, and approved by the Ministry of Defence, and I have deferred to the professional opinion expressed by those two Departments. On general grounds, having had some contact with questions affecting rifles over the last 60 years, I felt very much in agreement with the decision taken by the responsible technical Departments. I think it is very lucky for us that we did not get launched out on a solitary voyage on the ·280 or, as it is called, the E.M.2, for 10 years, with the Army having duplicate weapons and no other Army in the world on that system or calibre. We might have been.
I fully confess that I admired the ·280 and that I pressed hard in the United States that they should adopt it. If they had adopted it, it would have made a great difference, but they would not adopt it, and the question of our going on alone is a very serious one. In fact, I do not think anybody could possibly defend our conducting a private, isolated operation while at the same time our entire military system tends to work with as many countries as possible in the line.

Mr. Attlee: Was not one of the questions between the British and the American rifle a question of the calibre of the bullet, of the ammunition? That, I understand, has now been settled, so that there is no question about interchangeability of the ammunition. May I also ask this question: at the moment the right hon. Gentleman has decided to go with the Belgians but not, I gather, with the United States, who have come to no firm decision. Is not that so? Thirdly, would he explain to the House some of the details of this Belgian rifle which appears, from the point of view of any one used to rifles, to be very complicated? I understand that it has to have all sorts of bits put on to it before anybody can use a bayonet.

The Prime Minister: Canada is taking the greatest interest in this matter, but it is a very difficult and complicated matter to argue. I would gladly take part in a debate on the subject if an opportunity could be found in the course of the debate on the Army Estimates.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: We need more time.

The Prime Minister: I shall be delighted to enter the lists, and I hope the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) will keep his ardour for that occasion.

Mr. Strachey: Cannot the Prime Minister at least tell us on what grounds all his experts who. three years ago unanimously agreed that the British rifle was, on balance, superior, have changed the advice which they tendered at that time? Why, when the calibre position has been solved, should they now change over from the British design to the Belgian design? That is the point at issue.

The Prime Minister: Because they think that the essential qualities are at least equally well presented in the Belgian form and that many other convenient aspects of a more general character—important in a weapon of this class—are also much better presented—for instance to carry it on the march, to use it for manual exercises. It has a butt—remember that; it is very important when one has no ammunition left to have a butt on one's rifle. That does not always occur to the technician. It is also a very convenient weapon to use with the bayonet, and it also can fire in a dangerously short time all the ammunition which can ever be carried to the front.

Mr. Attlee: As the right hon. Gentleman has gone into some technicalities, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that an extra part has to be added at night to conceal the flash? When it is on, one has to take it off again in order to put on the bayonet. I think that would be highly inconvenient.

The Prime Minister: I should be very glad to organise an exhibition of the rifle and to facilitate Members of Parliament going to see it on a rifle range. They are welcome to fire it if they choose, provided adequate arrangements are made for pairing.

KENYA (REPORT OF INQUIRY)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

64. Mr. Swingler: To ask the Secretary of State for War when he expects to receive the proceedings of the court of inquiry on the allegations made at the trial of Captain Griffiths.

66. Mr. A. Henderson: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the joint responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for War for the operations being conducted against the Kikuyu, he will ensure that the full report of the recently-appointed court of inquiry covering the activities of both Departments, together with the evidence received, will be presented to Parliament.

72. Mr. Shinwell: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make a statement on the inquiry into recent incidents in Kenya.

76. Mr. Brockway: To ask the Secretary of State for War to state the conclusions reached by the court of inquiry into military actions in Kenya; and if he will publish the report of the court and the evidence submitted to it.

At the end of Questions—

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): Mr. Speaker, I will with your permission and that of the House answer these Questions by making a statement about the court of inquiry held by Lieut.-General McLean in Kenya.
The court assembled on 15th December and completed its report on 31st December.
Evidence was taken from all commanding officers and from officers, other ranks, chaplains and medical officers of all formations and major units now in Africa which have been involved in the operations. Others concerned were invited to give evidence and amongst those who availed themselves of this opportunity was the director of a native civil hospital and a bishop. I am satisfied that the court, which took evidence from 147 military and civil witnesses, gave every opportunity to those concerned to appear before it.
I told the House that when the court of inquiry had been completed I would


make available a full and frank report. This I have prepared and I can assure the House that I have omitted nothing of substance contained in the findings of the court of inquiry.
As my report to the House is of necessity rather long, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I circulated it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I think that hon. Members will agree with me when they have read it that the summary of the findings indicates that the troops in Kenya have shown a high sense of responsibility and application to duty. There do not appear to be any grounds for accusing them of indiscriminate shooting, irresponsible conduct or inhuman practices. There have, however, been allegations that in two instances serious misconduct occurred in the King's African Rifles. These cases are being fully investigated and disciplinary action will be taken if required in the light of these inquiries. As I have already told the House, both General Erskine and I are determined that such matters shall be brought to light and our intention, both in instituting the court of inquiry and in subsequent action, is for a clean-up, not a cover-up.
I consider that the court made a full and comprehensive inquiry and that all the facts have been placed before me. Subject to what I have said about the allegations of serious misconduct in two cases, nothing is disclosed which should in any way shake the confidence of the House in the high standard of behaviour of the British Army. As a result of reading the report and visiting Kenya, I am convinced that the British Army, under difficult and arduous circumstances, has shown that measure of restraint backed by good discipline which this country has traditionally expected.

Mr. A. Henderson: I am sure the whole House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that, except for two instances in the King's African Rifles, this report discloses no ground for lessening the confidence of the House in the high standard of the behaviour of the British Army. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he means about these two isolated instances in the King's African Rifles? Does his statement mean that evidence was brought before

the court of inquiry which established that there had been only two cases where money had been offered and paid to soldiers in that regiment out of all the forces taking part in the operations in Kenya—arising out of the suggestion that "five bob a nob "was being paid? Does the report establish that there were only two cases of soldiers being offered and paid money for killing these African tribesmen?

Mr. Head: No, Sir. When the right hon. Gentleman has read the report, he will see that the question of monetary awards is very fully dealt with in my Report which I am giving to the House. Those two particular incidents were not concerned with monetary awards but were of a more serious nature and they are outlined in the report. [Hon. Members: "More serious?"] I said of a more serious nature. The point is that, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, there were three categories concerned, one of which was alleged ill-treatment or brutality. These particular incidents were discovered by the court and are now the subject of detailed investigation, and it would be wrong for me to say more until these detailed investigations are completed. I can assure the House that, if the evidence is there as a result of these investigations, disciplinary action will be taken.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister explain to the House why he declines to publish the full report? If there is nothing to conceal, there is no disadvantage in hon. Members, and indeed the public, being made aware of all that happened during the inquiry. If, on the other hand, there is some reason why he does not wish to disclose all that was ascertained during the inquiry, does it not create suspicion in the minds of some people that there is something wrong, and would it not be justifiable in the interests of the Army, of the Government and of all concerned that he should publish the full report?

Mr. Head: I tried to explain before when this question was under discussion in the House that the proceedings of a court of inquiry, as written verbatim, are a privileged document. A great asset of these inquiries is that witnesses can give evidence quite freely without the fear of proceedings being taken. If it had been a civil court, then I could have published


the findings, but at the same time I could have compelled nobody to give evidence, and there would have been no guarantee that proceedings would not be taken against them. It is always the case that in a court of inquiry the proceedings are a private document and by publishing them we should be breaking down the whole of that precedent, which would be embarrassing not only on this occasion but on all other occasions in the future.

Mr. Strachey: Does the Secretary of State realise that no one, I am sure, in any part of the House doubts his efforts or those of General Erskine or of General McLean to clear up this matter or doubts the restraint which the Army has attempted to show in terribly difficult circumstances? The anxiety which has been expressed on this side of the House is that the circumstances of the work which the Army is being asked to do in Kenya today must inevitably produce, in the long run, the deplorable incidents which were shown in the Griffiths case and other cases. That is the anxiety which we have.

Mr. Head: I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety. I think that the British soldiers in Kenya and their officers are operating with great restraint and understanding in very difficult circumstances. I, personally, have confidence that they will continue so to do. Without trying to be too didactic, I would say that the incidents that have occurred have been cases where officers have failed in their duty in that respect and there are other reasons for thinking that those particular officers, perhaps, were not well-trained for the job they had to do. By and large, I do not think that this difficult situation is one with which the British Army cannot deal while retaining its high standards.

Mr. Swingler: No doubt the Secretary of State read the transcript of the court-martial proceedings on Captain Griffiths. Will he say, in view of the clear evidence in that case of the offering of bribes for the indiscriminate shooting of Africans, what charges are being preferred against those people about whom evidence was given? As a result of his court of inquiry, and in view of the sensational publicity given to the court-martial of Captain Griffiths, would it not be better to publish in full the proceedings of this

court of inquiry so as to clear up all doubts that were cast and allegations that were made in the case of Captain Griffiths?

Mr. Head: I think that the hon. Gentleman had much better await the report, which will answer fully the questions put to me. The latter part of his supplementary question I have already answered.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this side of the House we do not take the view that brutality was general in the Regular troops, and that the gravest charges are against the Kenya Regiment, the police and the Home Guard? Does the report cover those Forces as well as the Regular troops from this country?

Mr. Head: No, Sir. The Forces which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned do not come under my Department or the Army. The Court of Inquiry did, however, cover the actions of the Kenya Regiment and Home Guard when they were taking part in operations under the command of the Army; otherwise these forces are not covered.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the Secretary of State say whether any further proceedings are now to be taken against Captain Griffiths, and what further action is to be taken in the case of this officer in the future?

Mr. Head: I have already said that the particular cases now under investigation are awaiting the completion of that investigation before any final decision is made about either disciplinary or legal proceedings. I cannot answer that question until these investigations are completed.

Mr. Wyatt: How long will that be?

Mr. Dugdale: If it is not possible—which I can understand—to deal with troops who do not come under his command, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Colonial Secretary to see whether a suitable inquiry may be made into the allegations against people in the Home Guard and police and others not in the Army?

Mr. Head: I know that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has this matter very much in mind.

Following is the summary of the report by the McLean Court of Inquiry into allegations made during the trial of Captain G. S. L. Griffiths, D.L.I., against conduct of the British Security Forces in Kenya

Origin

1. Captain G. S. L. Griffiths, D.L.I., was tried by General Court Martial on 25th–27th November on a charge of murder of an African, and was acquitted. In the course of this trial certain allegations were made against the conduct of the British Security Forces in Kenya.

A Court of Inquiry was assembled by G.O.C.-in-C, East Africa, on 15th December, 1953, to enquire into and report on these allegations.

The President of the Court was Lieut.-General Sir Kenneth McLean, K.B.E., C.B., and members—Colonel G. Barret, O.B.E., Deputy Director, Army Legal Services, War Office and Colonel G. A. Rimbault, D.S.O., M.C., Deputy Chief of Staff, East Africa Command.

Terms of Reference

2. The Court were instructed to enquire into and report on the allegations made at the G.C.M. on Captain Griffiths in respect of:
(a) the offering to soldiers of monetary rewards for Mau Mau killings;
(b) the keeping and exhibition of score boards recording official and un official kills and other activities against Mau Mau;
(c) the fostering of a competitive spirit amongst units in regard to kills in anti-Mau Mau operations.

3. In addition, the Court were instructed to enquire into any other actions which might come to their notice which reflected discredit on the Army and, in particular, into:
(a) any other inhuman practices such as the cutting off of hands from Africans killed during the course of anti-Mau Mau operations;
(b) any other matters which reflected on the honour of the Army.

They were, however, instructed that, with the exception of inquiring into the operations of 39 Infantry Brigade from their arrival in East Africa, and in particular into the specific allegations that

a £5 reward had been offered for the first "kill" by one of its battalions, they would confine their inquiries to matters which occurred after 1st June, 1953.

Method

4. The Court assembled on 14th December, 1953, and completed its report on 31st December, 1953.

During this period it took evidence from all formations and major units (Lieut.-Colonels' Commands) now in Africa which had been involved in anti-Mau Mau operations.

5. A representative cross section of witnesses was heard from each major unit, ranging from the Commanding Officer to other ranks and including, where possible, the chaplain and medical officer.

In addition all units published orders giving details of the subjects being investigated by the Court and inviting any person wishing to do so to give evidence.

The Court heard evidence from 147 witnesses and these included six Army chaplains and four regimental Medical Officers, the Director of a native civil hospital and a Roman Catholic Bishop. The Christian Council of Kenya were invited to put forward any specific allegations against the conduct of the Army of which they were aware, but replied that they had no such matters to put forward.

Background

6. The area in which the Army in Kenya is operating comprises:

(a) The Prohibited Areas

Areas consisting largely of forest and mountain, gazetted as prohibited by the Kenya Government, into which no persons other than members of the Security Forces or a small number holding a special permit are allowed to enter. Under Kenya Emergency Regulations, Security Forces have the right, if necessary, to shoot on sight.

(b) The Special Areas

These are areas, gazetted as such, in which certain special rules regarding the use of fire-arms apply. Any person in a special area who fails to halt after being challenged is liable to be shot. The special areas include the Kikuyu,


Embu and Meru Land Units, commonly called "The Reserve," and also parts of the Kenya Highlands in the Central and Rift Valley Provinces in which lie the farms and ranches of European settlers, commonly called "The Settled Area."

Allegations

The offering to soldiers of monetary awards for Man Mau killings

7. The Court found one instance where a reward was offered to a unit for getting a specific, criminal. The battalion had been warned that a notorious Mau Mau leader, for whom the Government had offered a reward of five thousand shillings, was in the vicinity and that they were to undertake operations against him. Two of the Company Commanders, with the approval of the Commanding Officer, offered one hundred shillings to the unit which killed or captured him. This amount was to be laid out in kind for the benefit of the successful unit or sub-unit and was not to be paid to any individual. The Court considered that this offer, though mistaken, was explicable in the circumstances obtaining at the time.

There was also one instance which has already been publicised where a Commanding Officer offered £5 to the first sub-unit to kill a terrorist, as an encouragement to the troops when the battalion first went into action in anti-Mau Mau operations. The battalion was going into operations in the prohibited area (an area of thick forest) where no one other than the Security Forces had the right to be. The Court came to the same conclusion, as in the previous case, bearing in mind that it could not possibly recur because the G.O.C.-in-C. has since expressly forbidden the offering of monetary awards of any kind.

An instance also occurred where a Commanding Officer had given discretion to his Company Commanders to give rewards in the form of money, leave or other privileges to individuals or sub-units who put up an exceptionally good performance in operations. The assessment of a very good performance was not expressly related to kills. Monetary awards of this type will not recur.

Apart from the instances mentioned above and the rewards offered by Captain Griffiths as admitted in his evidence at

his court martial, there is no other evidence of the practice of offering soldiers monetary or other rewards for killing Mau Mau in any of the units which they investigated.

The keeping and exhibition of score-boards recording unofficial kills and other activities in operations against Mau Mau

8. The Court understood the term "Scoreboard" to be used in a derogatory sense and to refer to a visual record kept and displayed solely or mainly to foster unhealthy and irresponsible competition in killings between units and sub-units.

It is necessary for all formations, units and sub-units to collect and consolidate information recording all incidents in order to complete the periodical situation reports required by higher formations, and to show clearly to Commanders at all levels the progress of operations. The incidents so recorded include casualties to Mau Mau and to our own troops, prisoners captured, arms captured or lost, contacts with gangs, cattle stolen, etc.

The Court found that in platoons such information was kept in notebooks or memorised. In companies it was normally kept in notebooks or on pro-form as in files. In some Company, Battalion and Brigade Headquarters, these incidents were consolidated graphically in the form of wall charts for the greater convenience of Commanders.

All these forms of Charts were considered perfectly legitimate and reasonable. There was no evidence that they were used for any improper purpose. Moreover it was clear that without exception they were kept in offices to which access was severely restricted. There was no evidence of records of unofficial killings whether this phrase is used in the sense of Mau Mau wounded and believed killed or in the sense of Africans other than the established Mau Mau who have been killed.

The Courts finding was that allegations of the exhibition of "scoreboards" recording official and unofficial kills and other activities in operations against Mau Mau were unfounded. Nothing more appeared to have been kept than Charts recording official incidents consolidated from Situation Reports, which were kept in offices to which access was severely restricted.

The fostering of a competitive spirit amongst units in regard to kills in anti-Mau Mau operations

9. The Court found that it was widely recognised amongst all ranks that the number of kills obtained by units de pended largely on opportunity and that a captured Mau Mau who might possibly give valuable information was better than a dead one. Units' and sub-units' capabilities appear to have been judged not by their total of kills but by the number of successful operations they carried out, including the capture of prisoners. When battalions were operating solely in a prohibited area, the capture of arms and prisoners was rare due to the conditions prevailing in those areas and the number of kills therefore acquired a greater prominence.

Due to very wide dispersion the rivalry between battalions appears to be negligible. Members of different battalions seldom met and in no cases did the Court find that witnesses knew the total kills in neighbouring battalions. There was somewhat more rivalry between companies within a battalion and still more between platoons in a company. The Court satisfied themselves that the competitive spirit did not go beyond the natural rivalry to be found between sub-units in all good regiments in the British Army.

The Court found that allegations that the competitive spirit was being deliberately fostered amongst units in regard to kills in anti-Mau Mau operations were unjustified.

Identification of Mau Mau killed in operations

10. The Court also investigated whether the practice existed in the Army of cutting off the hands of Africans killed in operations and bringing these hands back as a means of identification.

The normal practice when an African is killed by troops during operations in the Special Areas is for the body to be brought back to the nearest police post where it is handed over to the police.

In the Prohibited Areas the normal practice is for the body to be brought back by a patrol if this is possible. If this is impossible due to distance, terrain, or for operational reasons, identification papers, if any, are removed from the body. When no papers are found fingerprints are taken with pads and ink

specially issued to patrols and particulars of the corpse are recorded. If operational considerations permit, the body is then buried. The papers and finger prints are handed over to the police on completion of the operation.

It appears that in the early phases of anti-Mau Mau operations and in the Prohibited Areas it was an accepted—although not a universal practice—to cut off either one or both hands from a body where the body could not be brought in and there was no other means of identification. The hand was brought back in order that finger prints could be taken from it. This practice was dictated by the necessity of reporting all Mau Mau casualties to the police. This practice started to decrease with the wide issue of finger printing equipment to units and has now been specifically forbidden, even if it means the loss of an identification.

It appears that in six instances (one of which was in the Special Areas) involving three battalions, hands had been brought back as proof of identification of Africans killed since 1st August, 1953. In each case this mutilation was carried out in good faith, on the instructions of a European officer or N.C.O. in view of the lack of other means of identification and was explicable in the operational circumstances. G.H.Q., East Africa, issued a further order on 1st January, 1954, accepting the loss of an identification if other methods were not available.

Inhuman practices—the torture and beating up of African prisoners and the illegal killing of Africans

11. Normally prisoners when captured are immediately questioned by members of the sub-unit which captured them (assisted where necessary by personnel of the Kenya Regiment, Police or Home Guard to act as interpreters) in order to obtain information as to who they are and whether they can guide the unit to a Mau Mau hideout. On conclusion of operations those retained as suspects are normally brought back to unit headquarters and handed over as soon as possible to the police—in some cases after further interrogation by the battalion Intelligence Officer.

The Court found no evidence whatever of African prisoners having been severely beaten or tortured by Army units for the


purpose of forcing them to give information or for any other purpose, except in certain specific instances in two Kings African Rifles (K.A.R.) Battalions which are discussed in paragraphs 12 and 13 below. In fact, in British battalions the troops were, as always, most sympathetic to their prisoners, offering them tea and cigarettes. As one witness put it to the Court, "The prisoners put on weight whilst they are with us." Nor did the Court find any evidence of the illegal killing of Africans, except in certain specific cases which are discussed below.

Inhuman practices in K.A.R. Battalions

12. During June, 1953, one Company of a K.A.R. Battalion acted as Mobile Reserve to 70 (East Africa) Infantry Brigade and was detached for some weeks from its parent battalion. Apart from the incidents on 11th June which gave rise to the trial by court martial of Captain Griffiths, at which he was acquitted, there were certain other specific allegations against officers and men of this Company. These allegations are still under investigation.

13. Certain specific allegations have also been made that certain African prisoners have been ill-treated in another K.A.R. Battalion. A full investigation is now being made.

Honour of the Army

14. Other than the allegations in relation to the two K.A.R. Battalions referred to above, which are now under separate investigation, there is no evidence of any inhuman conduct to wards Africans on the part of the Army.

Conclusion

15. The above is a full and frank summary of the findings of the Court. It is my opinion, after reading the findings of the Court, that the incidents referred to in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, though deplorable, are rare and isolated. Allegations that such practices are or ever were widespread in the British Army are with out foundation. Its conduct, under difficult and arduous circumstances, showed that measure of restraint backed by good discipline which this country has traditionally expected.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Commander Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.47 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill extends and slightly amends the Development of Inventions Act, 1948—an Act which, the House will recall, established the National Research Development Corporation. I think that it would be convenient if I started by saying a word about the Corporation itself.
I think the House will agree with me that it is important neither to exaggerate nor to minimise the rôle which the National Development Corporation has to play. It is still, in fact, in an early stage. It represents, of course, only one part of the massive development resources, public and private, which exist in the nation. Its purpose was not to supply these resources but to supplement them. The rôle allotted by Parliament to the Corporation in 1948 was, first, to hold the rights in certain inventions arising from public research, and secondly, to secure commercial development and exploitation by industry of those inventions plus any other inventions where it appeared that the public interest so required. For that purpose, the House of Commons voted the Corporation the sum of £5 million over five years, although it has not, in fact, spent anything like that sum. It is no reflection on those who introduced the Bill at that time that the sum itself was inevitably merely a guess as to what might be required during the period.
The Corporation is an expert body. The managing director, Lord Halsbury, is a full-time member, and I think the House will permit me to say that we are

very fortunate indeed to have his services in this capacity. Otherwise, the members are all part-time experts in their own field, who have lent their services for this particular rôle, and many of them are unpaid. We can be grateful to them for their services.
The Corporation does not itself, and will not in the normal course of its job under the Act, or under the Act as amended by the Bill, conduct development or research. Its job is to collect inventions, to enter into contracts with others to carry out any work that is required, and to license the result to industry to use. In general, the Corporation operates, therefore, through others, sometimes through private firms, sometimes through research organisations, sometimes through universities. In the ordinary course of events it does not, and does not in future intend to, set up elaborate laboratories for the purpose of undertaking research itself.
The Corporation's capital has been provided by the Government under the Act, and up to now £750,000 has been provided. Its revenue is derived from royalties. There has been not serious, but some, criticism that the Corporation has spent too little, which is a rare criticism to hear in these days, but it might be convenient if I say why it has been limited to £750,000.
The reason essentially is that it takes time to work through the small-scale bench work, with which the invention or its development starts, to the finished article or the working prototype which is eventually licensed to the industry; and on quite a number of the inventions the period of heaviest expenditure is yet to come. Expenditure has also been limited because the Corporation has been very careful in what it selected. I make no apology for that. I should be in a very difficult position indeed if I were standing at this Box trying to defend investment after investment by the Corporation which had been made at large expense and had subsequently failed. Instead, I can put forward the case of a Corporation that has kept scrupulously within the terms of reference laid down for it by Parliament and has, therefore, spent on a conservative budget.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Can my right hon. Friend state the income for last year?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am coming to that. This is almost like a Budget, but not quite so exciting. If expenditure was slow, the revenue has been slow too. Indeed, that must be so, because the revenue is received only after the licence has been taken out, production has started, and the royalty return begins to flow in. As my hon. Friend knows, very often the period of maximum return is generally towards the end of the patent period.
The details were published in the last Annual Report, which many hon. Members will have studied. In general, the picture which it shows is that of the Corporation borrowing money and spending it in acquiring patent rights of the inventions assigned to it, and then enhancing the value of these patent rights by further development, and eventually licensing the resultant product in return for revenue.
The revenue in 1949–50, when the Corporation first started, was £3,000. The revenue last year, the latest year covered by the Reports, was £25,000. I understand that the revenue next year is likely to be at least double this, or £50,000. These figures are very small, but they show the trend which is developing. The fact is that as the Corporation progresses, both the amount of money borrowed from the Government and committed on development work and the revenue received from past work are steadily on the increase.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Can my right hon. Friend give an indication whether, when patents which the Corporation exploits belong to Government Departments, provision is made for payment to the Government Departments for the work they have done, so that in addition to the Corporation getting the revenue which it now gets and will expect to get, Government Departments also will receive their share for the work they have done in inventing the invention?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think not, but I will look into the point. The purpose of the Act was to concentrate the rights in these inventions in the one body. Probably it would be desirable to try to get that body working correctly, with its expenditure and with its revenue coming in, without then trying further to channel

out the income from various bits of inventions to various Government Departments. But I shall certainly look at the point mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Now a word on the work that has been done. The Corporation holds some 500 patents at home and 227 overseas. Applications for registering other patents are, of course, in hand. Mostly they are from Government Departments, which is the point my hon. Friend had in mind, and up to the moment necessarily only a small proportion have got to the final stage where revenue is beginning to come in. They do not earn revenue until they are licensed, and the Corporation either has issued itself, or has had assigned to it from the Government Departments, some 250 licences to individual industries to use these things.
As the House knows, the projects vary considerably. The Corporation holds a large number of inventions in the field of the electronic brain. Mostly they originate from the work of Professor Williams and his team of research workers at Manchester University. They hold the rights with regard to a potato harvester, a chick sexer and a light steam engine. I mention these only to remind the House that what impresses one when studying the Corporation's Annual Report is the immense range of technology which it covers.
The first thing that the Bill does is to enable this work to go on. Without the Bill, the work would stop on 28th June this year. I think the House, on all sides, would agree that that would be a pity. It would deny the Corporation the opportunity to benefit to the full from the work it has already done. It would stop the channel between inventions which take place in Government Departments and their application by private industry, and it would deny to private inventors, not the only channel, but one channel which they have for trying out the product of their inventive minds. So Clause 1 preserves the powers of lending, and if necessary, with the consent of the Treasury, the waiving of interest payments.
Clause 2 of the Bill clarifies and slightly extends the scope of the Corporation's activities. I should like to take that Clause bit by bit. Subsection (1) is really no extension of the law as we understand


it. It is simply put in for the removal of a doubt. It appears that there is some doubt whether powers under the original Act exist to carryout research for the purpose of developing an existing invention if this should lead to a substantially new invention. I do not think any side of the House would wish to hamper the Corporation in its development work simply on the ground that it might discover something else. I think that in those circumstances, if there is a doubt, which I understand there is, in the original Act, it is much better that it should be removed.
Subsection (2), and indeed the remainder of Clause 2, is an extension of powers. I think I can explain its purpose best by referring to the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy which reported last July. Hon. Members who read that Report will probably remember the passages to which I am about to refer. Among other things, it says:
We believe that extension of the use of research and development contracts, largely through existing organisations, offers great possibilities in the modernisation of civilian industry and its exploitation of scientific discoveries. We hope that the appropriate authorities will give further, and urgent, consideration to the machinery necessary for this extension.
Then it goes on to point out that the National Research Development Corporation will be under some handicaps in carrying out that recommendation, and it says in particular:
The Corporation is concerned with the development or exploitation of inventions but it is not expected to see applications for scientific discoveries, nor has it the power to initiate research or to perform the vital function of identifying new needs.
I think everyone will agree that the Report of the Scientific Advisory Committee is an important document, and its recommendations cover a much wider field than this particular Bill. The application of these recommendations is being considered by the various Departments, not only by the Board of Trade but by the Lord President of the Council and others who are concerned with these matters. If the Corporation is to play its part in all this, it seems clear that it will need the powers contained in subsections (2) and (3).
Briefly, the object of subsection (2) is to deal with the case of an industry which states a practical requirement that it

wants and for which it desires an invention to be made if inventive genius can make it. In a case like that, it allows the Corporation to promote research work related to that end. The industry need not necessarily come to the Corporation, but it can do so if it wishes.
The purpose of subsection (3) is to deal with the case where the Corporation becomes aware of a piece of research which has resulted in a discovery which, at the moment, is of not practical application, but where the Corporation believes that if there is further research that discovery can be applied to some practical end in industry; that is to say, some piece of research which at the moment is interesting more from a theoretical point of view than any other, but which seems likely, if only a little more work is done on it, to be brought up to the point at which there can be practical application. Subsection (3) allows the Corporation to promote that further research if it so wishes.
Two points should be made clear. First, the job of the Corporation is to promote and assist research. It is not primarily to undertake it, and never to undertake it in competition with industry or with other Government Departments. That would be frustrating and a waste of time. Secondly, it is very desirable that the work of the Corporation should not overlap the work of the universities, or of other Government Departments, or of research orgnisations like the Medical Research Council and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. It is for that reason that we have inserted the last two subsections of Clause 2. We think that they are the necessary provisions to ensure that this type of work is approved of not only by the President of the Board of Trade, but by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, who, as the House will recall, is responsible for the general co-ordination of scientific policy.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: The right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Corporation should never undertake research unless somebody asks it to do so?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, it can, and subsection (3) specifically deals with the case where it has not been asked to do so but where a piece of research is required to be carried further so that it can be


developed for practical application. It can initiate; but if I am wrong in that, I will have it corrected.
That comprises the purpose of the Bill. I hope that it is in no sense of the word controversial. I have only to say this in conclusion. In the economic situation in which we find ourselves, we clearly need all the help with which science can provide us, and we cannot neglect any of the inventive skills which are available. The House may well agree with the oft-made criticism that our main weakness is not in research but in the application of research to practical inventions, or in the development and exploitation of those inventions to a point where the maximum use can be made of them in our industrial effort.
It is clear that no one body can secure this. There is a vast amount of work to be done by other research organisations such as the Medical Research Council, the Cotton Research Council, the Agricultural Research Council and other bodies of that kind which come under the aegis of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I believe that the National Research Development Corporation has its part to play in this work, and this Bill, if approved of by the House, will enable it to continue and to bring to fruition the work which it has started already, and give it some of these extra and rather wider powers which will enable it to carry on with its work even more effectively in the future.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: I welcome this Bill and I welcome, too, the opportunity to consider the progress of the Corporation and to consider also the place which it can and might occupy in our economy. Certainly, we can say today that the gloomy forebodings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who is now the Colonial Secretary, have proved to be completely false. At the time the original Bill was introduced he was full of alarm and despondency, but we can say that the record of the National Research Development Corporation, though a modest one, is very good.
The Corporation has behaved with great prudence and common sense, it has been careful not to inflate its staff beyond real requirements, and it has been at the

greatest of pains to use all the help it could get from outside by the use of consultants; and, also, it has co-operated to the full with industry. Taking everything into account, therefore, I believe that the record to date reflects great credit on the-members of the Corporation and particularly on Lord Halsbury and his staff, who have done a very good job. As time goes on I think we shall see further proof of the worth of the expenditure involved.
There is one point about the organisation of the Corporation which I want to ventilate although I recognise that it is not something which can be dealt with on the occasion of this Second Reading. Although the Corporation has a relatively small staff it is a fairly involved and complex organisation dealing with a wide range of not easy operations. I wonder whether the time has not come when the Corporation ought to be organised differently. At the moment we have the members of the Corporation, only one of whom is full-time, and below the managing director we have a number of top level staffs.
I am wondering whether we ought not to consider the possibility of having two bodies: one with the members concerned acting as trustees for the public interest and, below that, a body of full-time executives. That is now the pattern in large-scale industry and in some of the public corporations. I wonder whether we are trying to put too much on the present members and so I should like that to be considered.
I have no special point to make about the Bill which cannot be more properly put during the Committee stage. I only want to urge that the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) about Clause 2(2) should be clarified. It is important that we should know how the word "requirements" will be interpreted, so perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that point when he replies to the debate.
As I understand, the Corporation, as originally conceived, was primarily one dealing with patents that resulted from public research. The numbers of such patents may be large, but it does not follow that many of them are significant or important in commercial terms. Nevertheless, the Corporation has done,


and doubtless will continue to do, an extremely useful job of granting licences from the flow of patents. I would not think that the point made by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) in an interruption would be desirable; that is to say, I would not think it a good thing if an elaborate process of calculation had to be adopted in order to decide what small part of revenue ought to go to this or that Department because it had been responsible for the work in the beginning.
There is nothing spectacular about this side of the work of the Corporation, but it is a job that someone has to do and the Corporation is doing it well. After all, its work yields a small revenue which, if put alongside running expenses, is good, considering how short a time the Corporation has been in existence. There are those who expect more, but I think they do so because they do not really appreciate what public research involves. Large sums of money are being spent on defence research and to be effective it has to reach results which can be put into practice; that is to say, it has to be essentially inventive, but it by no means follows that it results in a large number of inventions or innovations which have a commercial use. On the contrary, I suspect that commercial use is exceptional and marginal, so that so far as defence research is concerned, whatever is coming into the Research Development Corporation is not likely to yield any large numbers of commercially exploitable inventions.
If, on the other hand, we turn to public research in the civilian field there is an entirely different pattern. Here I would say that it is exceptional for the work to be inventive. It is fundamental research, involving analysis and testing, but, unlike defence research, it is seldom essentially inventive. I am not saying this by way of criticism. The scientists and the research workers concerned are doing the job they have been set to do. Inventions may and do arise, but they are a relatively small by-product.
That is why I think it important to strengthen the powers of the Corporation so that it may foster the germ of an invention which may have commercial -possibilities and bring it from the potential stage to the point of production. I

am not one of those who think that inventions are lying about two a penny in the back rooms of scientists and research workers. I know that the Corporation has to spend endless time sifting and testing projects and that it is no easy task to find the right ones. I therefore welcome the extended powers which are to be given under this Bill.
Let us consider for a moment what is involved in any project. First, there is the original inventive idea; secondly, the research which turns the idea into some kind of practice; thirdly, the pilot stage or the development of the prototype; and, finally, all the preparatory work preceding actual production. So far the Corporation has been mainly concerned with the third stage and, of course, to some extent with the last. The new power means that the Corporation can come in earlier if necessary and if no one else is going to do the job that is needed. If anyone else can do it, so much the better, but there will be cases where the Corporation can help in these earlier stages.
It is important that we should appreciate that we are concerned not only with whether a thing is done, but when it is done. We are concerned not only that worthwhile projects should be undertaken, but, also, that they should be undertaken quickly before someone else, somewhere else in the world, beats us to it in a new market for a new product. This power to help research, in the words which the right hon. Gentleman quoted from the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy
to perform the vital function of identifying new needs;
is essential for the continued well-being of the Corporation.
As I understand, the stages which I have outlined become cumulatively more difficult and cumulatively even more expensive. The final production stage may well cost five, 10 or even 20 times as much as the pilot stage. Not only is there expensive tooling up in many cases, but it often means that plant and organisation are obsolete. It is not always easy for a firm to take the risk or to find the capital, even if it appreciates the desirability of the innovation or the new project or process. I say again that time is of the greatest importance. It appears as though American business


concerns are more ready or more able to plunge in, to take big risks, and to rely on the fact that the first comer in the field is the person who reaps the immediate large sales and often large profits.
In that connection, I was very glad to hear the President of the Board of Trade refer to the method of placing a development contract. I think that that method has much to commend it, and the quotation which the right hon. Gentleman gave us from the last Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy can, I think, be followed up by a further more specific quotation relating to the Corporation. Having discussed the place of research associations, the Council goes on to say:
Not all the research associations are sufficiently mature to be linked with a scheme such as this; 40 per cent. of the research associations have been started since the war, and it would be a mistake to force the younger ones too precipitately into the development field. Here we suggest that the National Research Development Corporation might help. The association could identify requirements, e.g. for new types of machinery. They could place a design contract with a suitable firm and then call on the Corporation for its help in further development. In some cases Government help might be needed at the design contract stage, but we believe that, in general, industry should bear the costs involved.
Where industry can do the job alone, there is no need for the Corporation to be involved, but I am sure there will be cases where a firm needs help in the early stages. Sometimes we may find a project involving a number of different parties where the Corporation might very well be the co-ordinating instrument in bringing those parties together in order to go ahead with the particular project. But we must be clear what this means. We should not mince our words. The truth is that the National Research Development Corporation is now inevitably involved, though in a very modest way, in the provision of risk capital. I do not know the relationship that exists between the Corporation and the finance corporations for industry, especially the I.C.F.C, but I imagine that they have to work together.
There are very great limitations on the way in which the I.C.F.C. works—I think they are well known—and I know of cases in the past where there was need not for help to extend a going concern, but for help in financing an entirely

new venture arising from some new invention or innovation. I believe that in the long run development expenditure yields national dividends. I have no doubt that many of our newer exports have only been made possible by the use of substantial public funds on research and development.
The electronic computator or electronic brain is a case in point. I do not know, but I certainly hope that this extraordinary product of British science and skill will, in due course, earn us money in the export markets of the world. There are other things here, such as the light steam engine, to which reference is made in the Report. This engine would be an absolute god send in many parts of the world. At this time last year I was in West Africa, and I am quite sure that there are many parts of West Africa that would benefit by having this highly original prime mover of a kind that could be used for many purposes. It would be wrong for me this afternoon to take up the time of the House going over the other possibilities, but I think that the ones which I have quoted may provide us with export earnings.
Finally, I wish to say a word about the relationship of the Measure which we are discussing to the broader economic picture. In paragraph 8 of the last Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy it says:
Today, we can hardly expect to live by our industry unless we change the pattern of our production and seek to develop new products and processes, which, by depending on the application of our scientific and engineering skills—and these are as good as those of any country—will keep us in the forefront.
The paragraph goes on to say:
Last year only £34 million out of a total of £2,500 million of overseas exports represented goods…which were unknown before the war. Even if we include such things as newer types of aircraft, the figure still falls short of £200 million, or 10 per cent, of the total of United Kingdom exports. Only continued emphasis on new and more efficient methods of production, and on new product development, as opposed to mere extension of existing production, can provide our manufacturing industry with the advantages it requires in the competitive world of international trade.
In paragraph 16—immediately relevant to the work of the Corporation—it says:
With our economy severely strained by the excessive demands made on it in recent years, and with industry mainly occupied in


maintaining and modernising the production of established goods and services, it is clear that any extensive move into newer fields will be very slow unless deliberate efforts are made to bring it about.
It is elsewhere that we shall look for the great bulk of these deliberate efforts, but it is within the field of the work of the Corporation that we shall also find some of these deliberate efforts to which reference is made in the Report.
I have recently been reading a somewhat difficult book by Professor Rostow entitled, "The Process of Economic Growth." In this book the author uses certain somewhat original concepts including what he calls "propensities." Three of these he puts in this way. First of all, the propensity to develop fundamental science; secondly, the propensity to apply science to economic needs, and, thirdly, the propensity to accept innovations.
If I had the time this afternoon, I believe I could show that the distribution of our resources at the present time is such as to produce a lack of balance between the resources devoted to fundamental research and those devoted to development. I believe that they are out of balance, and that it is possible to demonstrate that statistically. I am not suggesting that we should do less about fundamental research, but I am insisting that we ought to do more about development.
When the economic history of our generation comes to be written, I believe it will record that our propensity to apply science to economic needs was too weak. I believe it will record that our propensity to accept innovations was too weak. I also believe that our economic future depends in large measure not only on the quality of the scientists, research workers and technicians, but on how we use them. The greatest contribution that could be made now to the long-term solution of our balance of payments problem would be to increase the resources that are devoted to this kind of development. I welcome the Bill as a modest—perhaps I should say a very modest—step in what I believe to be essentially the right direction.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: I also welcome the Bill. I have something of a personal interest in it because about 12 years ago I had lunch

with the present secretary of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, Commander Powell, and Mr. Bennett, also of that Committee. We discussed the possibility of forming a corporation such as the National Research Development Corporation. As a result of that discussion, we prepared a memorandum which was put before the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. Towards the end of the war, that Committee made representations for the setting up of just such a corporation as was set up. It made those representations to a Cabinet Committee, which favourably considered them. Then, after the war, the Socialist Government implemented those representations in the Act of 1948
The history of the Corporation is one of support from all parties. I remember very well that, in the early days when we discussed possible functions, the critics said that the existing industrial research organisations were sufficient to enable inventions to be developed properly. They said that either the Corporation would be so cautious in its expenditure of public funds that it would do no good, or it would be wildly extravagant and there would be unjustifiable expenditure. In fact, because of most capable management, we have seen cautious but satisfactory progress.
In the early days when we discussed the need for a corporation, our minds ran very much along the lines described by the right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards). We considered the need for the speedier application of inventions and the quicker development of the results of research for the benefit of mankind. We thought that inventors who perhaps had difficulty with industry would be able to approach the Corporation and, as a result, there would be a speeding up of the application of inventions.
There is no doubt that the Corporation is of value to the inventor. He feels that there is an organisation to which he can submit his inventions for impartial consideration, whereas perhaps industry might want to do him down for some reason, or not wish to take up the invention. The fact that we have a National Research Development Corporation gives confidence to inventors. That is highly satisfactory. On the whole, we can congratulate Lord Halsbury and his staff on


the excellent work done in the last five years. There is no reason why the value of the work should not be shown in increased returns to the National Exchequer from different parts of the world and in various ways. That is exactly what we want. It is only by living on our wits, as the Duke of Edinburgh so rightly said not long ago, that we can hope to maintain our standard of living.
I ask the Minister whether those in Government Departments who make inventions receive any benefit. I put that question because in industry usually a firm has an arrangement with its research staff that, when a man makes an invention, patents for it are taken out jointly in the name of the individual and the firm. The firm pays the overheads and provides the means for research, but it is the brain of the individual which produces the invention. There is a partnership, and it is only right that in such a partnership both the firm and the individual should benefit.
I should like to know whether that procedure is followed in Government Research Departments. Do people who invent something benefit in partnership with their Department? Such an arrangement would be an excellent incentive. Human nature being what it is. it would be most beneficial. The Corporation is the medium for commercially exploiting the inventions made in Government Departments. The Corporation does a lot of extremely useful work and it ought to be rewarded for it; but part of the financial return by way of royalties should go to the Government Department concerned and to the people in that Department just as if they were employed by an outside firm. The Corporation in partnership with firms develops new inventions. I should like to feel that the same kind of practice as exists in industry also exists in Government Departments.
The Bill, modest as it has rightly been called, is useful in that it enables the Corporation which has made a promising start to continue its activities and also to widen its power to do useful work. The results of research and development do not become obvious for some time. The life of a patent is something of the order of 16 years. After an invention it may take up to four years to bring the product from the laboratory stage through the prototype and into production.

Clearly, much of the work done by the Corporation in the past four or five years will show its results in the next 10 or 15 years. The steady increase in revenue from royalties to meet the expenditure is most satisfactory. I should have been alarmed if I had seen spectacular results. They are not wanted. A steady, increasing development shows that the Corporation is being managed on the right line.
I should like from the Government back benches to express appreciation of the work of the managing director and his staff in this most important field of developing inventions and making available at the earliest possible moment the results of research in Government Departments in the United Kingdom.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: The Bill by which the National Research Development Corporation was first set up was introduced a few months before I entered the House, but I remember that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), who played such a distinguished part as Chairman of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on that occasion, gave his full support to the Bill in face of the extremely heavily facetious humour which at that time we were accustomed to expect from the present Colonial Secretary. His support, however, was justified and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) has said, the Colonial Secretary's criticisms were not, because there is no doubt that the Corporation has fulfilled its function. That function was described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) when he introduced the Bill. It is quite a narrow function.
As has been said, its main function has been to ensure the development and commercial exploitation of inventions originating in Government establishments, hospitals and universities. Experience of the Corporation and its annual reports show that there is not a vast number of private inventions at present which cannot find development. I wonder whether this does not belie the argument which is sometimes used that lack of risk capital is holding back the development of inventions, except to a small extent and perhaps more along the lines which have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend.
It may be that long-shot inventions and inventions which for final application in production require a very heavy capital expenditure may be held back, but I do not think that there is any argument that a great number of inventions are not being developed by industry through lack of capital, at any rate in the early stages. It is clear from the inventions which have been communicated to the Corporation over the last three years, for which it has reported, that out of a total of 3,036only 1,242 were inventions from private sources, whether individuals or industrial undertakings. About one-third of the total number of inventions led to serious discussions, but only a tiny fraction to any final agreement for their commercial exploitation. It is interesting that of this total one-sixth of the public inventions have now reached a stage of being actually in operation in industry. The proportion of private inventions is very much smaller.
This may not be very surprising in view of the overwhelming concentration of scientific skill and knowledge, outside the universities and the Government and public research establishments, in large industrial establishments, which are capable of carrying out developments themselves. I do not know of any figures that are available in this country, but a very interesting report has been published recently in the United States which shows that the situation is just the same over there. The report is made by the United States Department of Defence and is entitled" Scientific Research and Development in American Industry."
It shows that in 1951 three-quarters of all the research workers out of a sample of about 2,000 firms investigated were in the aircraft, electrical machinery, chemicals, scientific instruments and machinery industries. About half of the work which was being done was being done for Government establishments. Two-thirds of all the research engineers and scientists were employed by 220 companies with 5,000 or more employees—only 11 per cent. of the whole sample. It is interesting to note, by the way, that the amount spent on research represented about 2 per cent. of turnover compared with 1·4 per cent. of firms investigated by the F.B.I, at about the same time.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of research which is being

undertaken by industry in this country is for defence and what for civilian use. It is difficult to obtain accurate figures of the amounts that are being spent on research development by industry and the Government as a whole. I have tried to make an estimate. As far as I can see, the total amount spent in 1951 on industrial research and development was £268 million, of which civilian research appeared to account for £70 million. It is extremely difficult to provide figures because, undoubtedly, there is some overlapping. In view of the very large amount of money which is at present being spent on Government account for research and the inevitable by-products of defence research, it seems to me that the Corporation has a very important job indeed in ensuring that the fruits of this research are used in industry not only for defence purposes but for civilian purposes as well.
It must be quite clear to nearly everybody that our developments in civilian jet aircraft are by-products of a very large amount of money spent on research and development of military aircraft. One of the examples given in the annual report of the Corporation, that of an invention in plastic structures, is based upon work that is being done to some extent in industry but is largely being co-ordinated at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, at Farnborough. That is a good example of work done primarily for defence purposes producing inventions which, through the medium of the Corporation, can find applications in industry.
Reference has been made to Clause 2, which is perhaps the main new aspect in the Bill, and particularly Clause 2 (2) which is intended to enable the Corporation to carry out the recommendations of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy for the placing of research and development contracts for civilian purposes. It is undoubtedly a very useful Clause, but probably its use is rather narrow. There is no doubt that it might be, and should be, used to stimulate backward industries. To a large extent the major industries, especially those with large and very active industrial research associations, can look after themselves. Some of them feel some anxiety about Clause 2 (2) on the ground that it might lead to some overlapping. The President has referred to that point.
I hope that it is intended that Clause 2 (4) shall be used not purely in a ham-


pering sense, but to ensure that there is full co-operation between the Corporation and others in the same field and that suitable machinery for co-operation will be set up. There is certainly a feeling in some industrial research associations that sometimes projects in their field are carried on at Government establishments of which no one outside knows anything at all. The result is that overlapping takes place.
If the Parliamentary Secretary could develop that point it would reassure industrial research associations and others who are engaged in this field. Apart from its work for the exploitation of public inventions in the research and development field, the main use of the Corporation perhaps falls in between one of the limits which are normally fixed in particular industries, or between particular fields of scientific method, where a whole number of scientific methods are required to solve a problem. It is here that very often a new idea falls down because there is no existing organisation with enough experience or interest to carry it through.
Industry is fairly good on the short-term things but the medium-sized and smaller industries certainly are not so good at looking into the developing long-term projects, particularly revolutionary changes in process methods. Many of these new changes in method, of course, involve completely new scientific knowledge and new types of skill for which very often production engineers and managers or those responsible for production in an industry have no background knowledge, skill and experience.
It is important to try to fill a gap which sometimes seems to exist in this sort of case. The great growth of modern chemical engineering has produced a whole range of new materials for which new machines and equipment have to be used so that they can be turned into goods. Very often the people in the industries concerned have too narrow an experience to exploit them. One example which comes to mind and seems to fit very much into this Clause of carrying out research and development likely to lead to inventions satisfying specific practical requirements is that of machine tools required in the aircraft industry.
I do not know whether the President read a report of the remarks of Mr. Woodley, of Vickers Armstrong, at the

recent conference on aircraft production, in which he was strongly critical, either of the industry itself or of the machine tool manufacturers, for not looking ahead to produce the large forging presses and other types of machine tools that would be required for what is known in the industry as "the shape of wings to come." It is no good producing completely revolutionary designs, and very often basing them on revolutionary materials, if revolutionary methods by which the goods may be produced are not also devised. Very often the Corporation ought to step into this field.
I wish to refer to a remark of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone on payment to Departments. I think that if there were a representative from the Treasury present, although it is a House of Commons responsibility, there would be very strong objections to removing control of expenditure from a Department. But the hon. Member is on a good point. I believe that there is some sort of advisory committee which looks into the question of payments to civil servants for inventions. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can deal with the matter, which, I think, is very important. I hope that some way of giving credit to Departments may be found, even if it is not financial. We must not overlook the fact that the Corporation will not only be an earner of foreign exchange, as we hope, but may soon be a substantial dollar earner. I believe that much of the work in developing electronic computers may be a dollar earner.
Recently I saw a report on the process of printing by electronic circuits, a new development. But I understand that this is one in which the Corporation is interested and that it is largely based on a British invention. What worries me is that Americans always seem to be publishing new ideas as if they had suddenly produced them. Very often we find that they are British inventions, and that we are to get substantial royalties from them. The Corporation, or someone, should do a little boosting for some of these inventions which appear in American trade or technical papers as if Americans had suddenly produced them. I know that very often there are commercial and other secrets which prevent the explanation of the true relationships between the Corporation and some of its licensees. Nevertheless, I think we should


get a good deal more credit for some of the development work going on in this country in the last few years. There is no doubt at all that only in this way shall we solve our balance of payments problem.
The future of this country can only lie in our selling more and more goods that others have not learned how to make—as I have said very often. We must not concentrate on competition of price, which would lower the standard of living of our people, but on the competition in brains and invention. In that way there is no doubt that the Corporation can play a very significant, although, we agree, a limited part. It can have a specific effect in stimulating some of the backward industries and smaller research establishments and act as a stimulus to the rest of industry in what I consider to be one of the most important features of our public life today.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) referred to one of the reasons why he and others associated with him on the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee originally promoted the ideas which led to this Bill. That is now nearly 10 years ago. He mentioned private inventors fearing that their inventions would not be taken up by private industry. That fear has been expressed on various occasions, but whenever it has been investigated by impartial bodies, such as the Swan Committee a few years ago, it has always been discovered to be founded on singularly little fact.
Far from not wanting to take up inventions, industry—which to a great extent lives on inventions—is leaning over backwards to find ideas which it can take up and develop. The private inventor, if he has any real originality or anything which is commercially practicable, is immediately welcomed. How few inventions by private inventors can be taken up is shown not only by the broad statement I have made, but by figures which the Corporation has given in its appendix. It shows the striking disparity between the number of inventions communicated to the Corporation in the last year by private firms and individuals—which is more than 300—and the number of patent rights actually assigned to the

Corporation, which is 11. I think that shows that a great many of the communications had nothing in them of substantial importance.
Clause 2 is important in clarifying the Corporation's legal position. But it also brings out a rather important principle in the whole problem of developing patents. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has been talking of a recent and extensive study in America. He pointed out that a large number of patents in America, where they are blessed with more statistics than we ordinarily are, have been granted to individuals working in large corporations there. I think that is a comment on two very important factors in this situation and should be clearly understood.
The first is how often a modern invention comes not from a single man having a brilliant idea of his own but from teams of people, each contributing a specialised knowledge to the problem which has to be solved. On the whole, those teams of people are in large corporations. There have been memorable exceptions in small corporations in America, such as Universal Oil Products, which originated the oil-cracking patents.
The other important feature is that patents not supported by "know-how," that is, experience and technical information, are unpractical things. What those who are to exploit the patents want is not only the claims, in the written documents, and the knowledge of scientific principles on which the claims are based, but also the whole technical knowledge of how to put those ideas into actual practice. That "know-how" is far more likely to be acquired by a group of people working together.
Clause 2 of this Bill seems to me to be necessary, not only to clarify the original Act, but to make an important addition to it if the Corporation is to do what it was intended to do. As I understand it, the Corporation has felt, in regard to many of these inventions from Government Departments and universities, that it has been legally inhibited from undertaking the necessary development work on an idea incorporated in a patent—without having the necessary "know-how"—to make it possible to interest private industry in exploiting what may be a good idea.
The industry itself may hesitate to undertake the development work necessary, or it may feel that the bare patent is not sufficient in itself, because there is uncertainty as to where it will lead. I think the position of the Corporation will be strengthened by the new or more clearly defined powers contained in Clause 2. We all wish to ensure that these patents will bring benefit to our industries in the various ways which have been outlined, and I think the proportion will be much higher if their development can be carried a step further than the Corporation has found possible to do in the past.
It is clear from this debate and from the reports published by the Corporation, that one of its main functions is to be an organisation to which may turn those who are not quite certain about who are the right people to contact with an idea expressed in a patent. It has undertaken wide activities even with the rather uncertain powers it has possessed up to now. It has acted as a sort of catch-all for technical information which does not fall into clearly defined departments.
It is a great credit to the management of the Corporation that it has built up such a reputation. When some technical problem arises in Government or university circles and no one is certain how to take advantage of the benefits which may be apparent upon its solution, people have confidence in the National Research Development Corporation to consult it and find out if such benefits can be fitted into some industrial organisation.
One learns from the reports of the large number and extraordinary range of projects which the Corporation has been asked to undertake, including those connected with raw materials, for cortisone, with liquid gas plants, and with light steam engines—about which I know considerable hopes are entertained in the under-developed parts of the world—and so on. This whole range of activities is possible because the management has built up this sense of confidence to which I have referred and which it will be possible to increase by the provision of these additional powers. The Corporation will be enabled to put ideas before manufacturers and others interested with rather more "know-how" attached to them, and in a stage of greater development, which will make the use of such ideas even

more marked in the coming years than at present.
Although this small Bill will not revolutionise the industrial life of this country, it refers to an organisation which has made a very useful, if not an overwhelmingly important, contribution to our industrial life. In adopting the provisions contained in this Measure, we shall be sending that organisation on its way with even better chances of success in its activities than during the past years.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Like the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), I remember very well when the National Research Development Corporation Bill was first discussed in this House. At that time I occupied the position of chairman of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which the hon. Member now holds. I remember that there was general agreement on both sides of the House about the value of that Measure though there were some discordant notes which we have not had today. Particularly were they evident in the expressions of the present Colonial Secretary who, I think I may say without offence, was not exactly at his best on that occasion. It is gratifying to note the agreement today about the importance of this small Measure.
The development of industry over recent years indicates that a body such as the National Research Development Corporation is increasingly necessary. It fills gaps which need to be filled. Over a large area of our national economic life we now have public utility corporations, or publicly owned corporations, and we need a body which can do what for the moment private industry cannot perform. It is now all the more important for our export trade that we should be at the top in the efficiency of our production. For some time past a weakness in our industry has been that, although we are first-rate in pure science and lead the world in that respect, we are still not up to the level of America in the application of scientific discoveries to industry; although to some extent, as a result of our efforts, we are narrowing the gap.
Recently, I was in the Middle East and had occasion to see some of the competition which our exports there have to meet. I found, in Iraq, that we have lost bridge


buildings contracts to the Germans. Some say that that is due to the fact that the Germans are not putting in the same quality of material that we put in, and that our workmanship is still the best in the world. That I am prepared to believe. On the other hand, there are those who say that in bridge building the Germans have found some way of lowering their costs which is not, as yet, clear to us. I do not say that that is true, but it may well be, and if so, it is certainly a matter which requires investigation. We must be ready on every occasion to ensure that we are not caught out by any scientific invention which the Germans—or the Japanese for that matter—may be applying to industry and which we are not.
It is often the case that to lower costs and meet competition a new scientific invention can be introduced to maintain, and even extend, our exports. As has already been stated in the debate, there are many large firms which are engaged in their own research and can give a very good account of themselves. It is rather more difficult for smaller firms to find resources for research and development of inventions. Judging by the Sixth Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, it seems as if we are still tending to stick to the old lines in our export trade. Figures were quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) which appeared to show that new types of exports are still far too low a percentage of out total exports.
At the same time, we can lead the world in certain forms of production, as with the jet aircraft. Government research and development contracts have, of course, gone a long way in assisting the aeroplane industry. The trouble in the case of small industries is that there is too long a time lag between the discovery of a scientific principle and its application to industry. Some small industries could not afford, even if they had the resources, to look ahead far enough. They require relatively quick results. It is for the purpose of looking ahead for some years and discovering something which will bring results before many years pass, even if it does not do so immediately, that we require further development of the Corporation and its powers.
From the legal angle, it appears that the 1948 Act did not possess the powers which ought to exist now. At any rate, if there is any doubt about it, that doubt ought to be removed, as seems to be the case under the Bill. The Corporation ought to be able to take the initiative, look for new scientific processes and initiate research into practical developments for industry.
It is also necessary that the Corporation should have very close relations with the research associations which are financed partly by private industry and partly by the D.S.I.R. These are very important research associations in all forms of industry. The Sixth Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy says, on page 8:
The associations could identify requirements, e.g., for new types of industry…and then call on the Corporation for its help in further development.
I believe that the Bill will go some way towards making that possible. There appears to be no doubt about it. Clause 2 (3) says:
Subject to the provisions of this section, where it appears to the Corporation that a course of research has resulted in any discovery such that the continuation of the research may lead to inventions of practical importance, the Corporation shall have power to assist the continuation of the research.
That certainly gives the Corporation powers which will enable it to exploit a new and fruitful form of activity.
I noted that the President of the Board of Trade rather took the view that the Corporation had spent less than £1 million because there had not yet been sufficient time for inventions to develop. I hope that that is so, but when I saw the figures I could not help feeling that it might also be due to the fact that the Corporation's sphere of activity was not sufficiently wide. Anyway, I am sure that the country is very much indebted to the chairman, Lord Halsbury, for the able way in which he has managed the Corporation so far, and I am sure he will make the fullest use of the increased powers contained in the Bill.

Mr. J. Edwards: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that Lord Halsbury is the managing director and not the chairman of the Corporation.

Mr. Philips Price: I apologise for that slip.
We can all welcome the Bill in that it provides a new source of power which industry needs. I repeat that it is vital for our export trade that we should be absolutely up to scratch. During the last few months I have seen evidence that some of our exports in the Middle East are in danger and I believe that that is the case in other parts of the world as well. We must not only not lose ground but also gain ground if we are to close the gap in our balance of payments. I believe that the Bill will help somewhat in solving the problem.

5.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): The Bill has had a most friendly reception from every quarter of the House. That is a tribute not merely to the fact that everything we seek to do in the Bill commands the assent of hon. Members, but also to the work of the Corporation. I was very glad that the right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) paid a deserved tribute to the Corporation and that hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed with him.
There has been some discussion about the position and importance of the private inventor. Several hon. Members have mentioned that the number of private inventions which has been developed by the Corporation is small, as one would expect, compared with the number which has come from Government Departments and publicly financed research, and so forth. It may be wise to remind ourselves what the Corporation has said on this subject. It dealt with the matter at some length in its first Annual Report, which is a most admirable statement of the way it has proceeded and co-operated with the various organisations in the country with which co-operation is so important.
On page 7 of the First Annual Report there are three paragraphs dealing with the private inventor which answer a number of questions put by hon. Members. The Report states:
The statistics given in Section 7 indicates that of 485 inventions submitted from this source 358 were rejected and 105 were in a form too incomplete to permit the Corporation to form any opinion as to their merit. The greater part were of an obviously minor nature, and only three survived the test of assessment by experts. In two of these cases

the inventor was willing to collaborate with the Corporation on terms judged equitable by both parties. In the third case the inventor eventually made private arrangements for finance.
A significant number of the submissions from the private inventor show that too many inventors, either through inability or unwillingness to keep in touch with current trends in technical progress, devote energy and effort to devising inventions which industry either does not want or cannot use without complete dislocation or reconstruction. This experience is not exceptional and is paralleled by that of other organisations elsewhere. This does not mean, however, that the Corporation does not give the most careful examination and consideration to all inventions submitted to it which appear to have some technical merit or economic value.
By contrast with this state of affairs it is of interest that all three of the inventions selected by the Corporation as meriting public support lay in the domain of applied mechanical engineering and all three were the designs of qualified engineers with experience in the inventive field to which they had directed their attention.
What the Corporation has said on the subject of private inventors in its Second Annual Report explains, I think, why comparatively few of the inventions coming from this source came within its terms of reference. At the bottom of page 8 it says:
Notwithstanding the fact that we do not accept responsibility for these inventions, few if any of which would fall within the field covered by any reasonable interpretation of the words 'public interest,' we endeavour to put the inventor in touch with likely entrepreneurs or possible users if any are known to us and in one or two cases we know that this has led to a successful association of the parties.
Our own interpretation of the Corporation's responsibility to the private investor lies along the lines of paying for the development work necessary to give practical embodiment to immature but fertile ideas of a sufficient public importance. This can, in our opinion, be best achieved by demonstrating a fully engineered prototype to 'a firm engaged in the industry concerned' and thereby proving that the invention is a sound one. It is along these lines that we have been working.
That is the attitude which the Corporation has taken to private inventors, and I think it is a line which was fully justified and which the House approves.
The right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) added, I think excellently, to the quotations which my right hon. Friend had made in opening the debate from the Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy which was published


last July. I agree with the importance of the further quotation which the right hon. Gentleman made, which, I quite agree, had a direct bearing on the problem before us. I think I am right in saying that while the House will have an opportunity to consider that matter further at a later stage, the powers necessary to achieve what the Advisory Committee wish are conferred by the amendments to the law that we are introducing in Clause 2, about which I will say more in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) asked me an important question about the position of inventors in a Government Department. I think I should draw his attention to the fact that this is dealt with in the Second Annual Report of the Corporation. The position is that if a Government servant, in the course of his work, makes an invention of substance, the question of a reward is an ex gratia matter. Nevertheless, if the invention is exploited commercially, an ex gratia payment can be made. The matter is dealt with in the Appendix to the Second Annual Report, which contains a direction to the Corporation from the Board of Trade and, as an Appendix to that direction by the Board of Trade, a Treasury Circular to the Departments.
Perhaps I should read paragraph five of that Circular, which I think answers my hon. Friend's question:
Their Lordships consider that it will be appropriate for Departments to determine the amount of the awards (if any) to be made to their officers in respect of the commercial exploitation of their inventions by the Corporation. The Corporation are in agreement with this and will be prepared to pay out of their receipts the amounts which Departments certify as reasonable and proper. Departments should, however, consult with the Corporation in each case on the question of the commercial value of the invention concerned, and, where appropriate, the Corporation should be represented by assessors on Departmental Awards Committees.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), who explained to me that he would be unable to be present during my speech owing to an important function which he has to perform in the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, raised some interesting questions. He was quite right in assuming that the object of subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 2 was not to discourage the use of the new powers con-

ferred by subsections (2) and (3), but merely to avoid the overlapping which he said certain of the research associations feared. I quite agree with what has been said on both sides of the House about the utility of these new powers.
Let us take the sort of case in which it is necessary or desirable to have these provisions in order to prevent overlapping. Obviously, most work in the development of inventions and discovery is done by industry in its own laboratories and on its own initiative. In the majority of cases in which Government help is needed, it is expected that it will be provided by the existing machinery of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research or the other Government Departments.
There may, however, be occasional cases in which the Corporation can properly serve either as manager or paymaster or both in a process of research and development. Let us take, for instance, the case, which I think the hon. Member put to me, where the subject does not fall wholly within the province of a single research association, or where the research has to be done in a field of technology in which the Corporation already has considerable experience. In those cases, it may be convenient that the research shall be done by the Corporation under the new powers conferred by subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 of this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) dealt with certain points with which I have already dealt, and also paid a deserved tribute to the value of the Corporation in providing a centre to which anybody who had a valuable invention but did not know how to proceed might go, at any rate, for advice. I think that this body at present fills a great need, not only on account of what it has already done, which has been mentioned both by my right hon. Friend in opening the debate and by other hon. Members since, but in giving confidence to inventors that their ideas can be and will be considered by an expert body.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), who has always taken great interest in this whole subject as I remember from many previous debates, pointed out that, in spite of our great skill or indeed pre-eminence in


certain branches of pure science, in the development and exploitation of these ideas, we have sometimes lagged behind in comparison with some of our competitors, and that it was important that this should no longer be the case.
I think it was the hon. Member for Edmonton, but it may have been the right hon. Gentleman who opened for the Opposition, who mentioned that the development and exploitation of the ingenuity which led to these inventions might produce very important returns in dollars. That is undoubtedly the case, and one hon. Member mentioned the invention or group of inventions popularly referred to as the electronic brain. I assure the House that the necessary patents have been taken out so that these ideas are protected all over the world, and it may well be that these developments will produce the return which various hon. Members have mentioned and desire.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West also mentioned, and said he was a little worried about, the comparatively small sum which had so far been spent by the Corporation, but I do not think that any such deduction as he feared should be drawn from that fact. The actual amount spent by the Corporation is largely a matter of chance, and it does not necessarily give any measure of the work which they are doing. For instance, if they are able to place an invention with an industry prepared to do the entire development and exploitation of the patent, the Corporation reserving, of course, a right to receive royalties, the invention may then be developed without any great expense to the Corporation except the expenditure on the patent, and so forth. Another reason for the small expenditure is that there has been no really major invention which they have had to develop, though that position may be altered at any moment. What I would impress on hon. Members is that the

amount of money which the Corporation has expended gives no indication of the importance or, indeed, the amount of work which it is doing.
I have, in the course of my reply, dealt, I think, with the various points raised in all quarters of the House. The Government very much welcome the friendly reception of this Bill, which they have no hesitation in commending to the House as a very useful Measure, and they hope for its early passage into law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period during which advances may be made to the National Research Development Corporation out of the Consolidated Fund and during which the Board of Trade may waive interest on such advances, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) any increase in the sums which in accordance with section eleven of the Development of Inventions Act, 1948, fall to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund or raised under the National Loans Act, 1939, or in accordance with section twelve of that Act fall to be paid into the Exchequer or issued out of the Consolidated Fund and applied in redeeming or paying off debt or paying interest;
(b) any waiver of interest in accordance with section eight of that Act;
being an increase or waiver attributable to extending the said period.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CURRENCY AND BANK NOTES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ISSUE AND RECALL OF BANK NOTES BY BANK OF ENGLAND.)

5.36 p.m.

The Chairman: Mr. Norman Smith. Page 1. line 17.

Mr. Norman Smith: On a point of order. Do I correctly understand, Sir Charles, that it is not your intention to select the first Amendment on the Order Paper, which is in my name?

The Chairman: No; in any case, the first Amendment is not in the hon. Member's name; but I am calling the second Amendment, to line 17, which is in the name of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Smith: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after "denominations," to insert "exceeding ten shillings."
Perhaps the Committee could take this Amendment and the next Amendment together, because they stand or fall together.

The Chairman: That can be done, with the leave of the Committee.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Sir Charles.
The Amendments are intended to tidy up Clause 1, which, at the moment, has a very extraordinary effect. Subsection (4) lays it down that the holder of bank notes of any denomination shall be able, in certain circumstances, to go into the Bank of England and to receive in exchange for them notes of a lower denomination, that is to say, bank notes which for the time being are legal tender, as he may specify.
The point of the Amendment is that there is no bank note of a lower denomination than the 10s. note. It says on the face of the 10s. bank note, over the signature of a gentleman who is described as the "Chief Cashier" and whose signature is not very clear—I think it is "P. S. Beale"—that the Bank of England
promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of Ten Shillings.

If the Bill lays it down that we may take a £1 note to the Bank of England and say, "I want two 10s. notes for it, which I am entitled to have under the statute," the same Bill ought to lay down what we are entitled to do with the 10s. note, on which there is printed this promise to pay.
In the present state of the law, that promise on the 10s. bank note does not mean anything at all, unless we take it at its face value and assume that it means 10 shillings in the cupro-nickel coinage of this Realm. If it means that, there is no need for me to proceed with my Amendment. If it does not mean that, and unless anybody is entitled to take as many 10s. notes as he has into the Bank of England during certain office hours and say, "I want to get rid of these 10s. notes and have cupro-nickel coins," the promise is quite meaningless and the law needs tightening up.
I should like to make a test case of it, but I happen to be a shy and retiring person. I should like to take a 10s. note into the Bank of England. Unfortunately, I have not enough cheek to do that sort of thing. There are other hon. and right hon. Friends of mine who are less retiring than I am, and who would brazenly go into the Bank of England, plank quite a number of these notes down on the counter and say, "I have come for the shillings which the Bank of England promises me in respect of each of these notes."
After all, the whole of this currency business is shrouded about with a lot of unnecessary mystery, not to say superstition. Most people in the country are entirely ignorant of the whole subject. It would not be unreasonable for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to reply, "What is the hon. Member worrying about? The thing works. Ten shilling notes do change hands, and have been changing hands ever since 1914, in one form or another. People do accept them and have confidence in them, and if the promise does not mean anything, who cares?"
Quite a lot of symbols in our contemporary civilisation are, I suppose, utterly meaningless, and perhaps this is one of them, and does not matter much. I ask the Financial Secretary to say what the position is about these 10s. notes, and what the promise to pay means, if it means anything at all.

Mr. Ian Horobin: I am not sure that the Amendment is as innocuous as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) thinks it is. It is true that in the course of time, since the £ sterling ceased to be on the gold standard, the curious promise has been on the face of the notes, but it does not mean what it originally meant.
Few people, and certainly none of the very modernist currency experts whom I see on the Front Bench opposite, would wish to go back to a system in which gold coins in the hands of the public were a large part of our gold reserve. There are arguments on both sides of currency policy, those which are in favour of convertibility, and those which are not by people who would like it to have a gold backing. I very much doubt whether anybody would wish to see us go back by a side wind to a situation in which the public could, as of right, demand their notes to be changed to gold.
Unless I misunderstand the effect of the Amendment, it would mean, in the form in which it is on the Paper, that those who hold a 10s. note could go to the Bank of England and demand a half-sovereign in gold for it, and certainly a coin. We might say that we had selected a coin that we wished to have. In the form in which the Amendment is drawn, if it were passed it would give the public a right to demand payment in half-sovereigns for their 10s. note. If that is the effect of the Amendment, I do not believe it will get very much support from either side of the Committee. It would be contrary to public policy, and we should be very unwise to support it.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: According to my reading of the Bill, people can tender notes for £1 and over at the Bank of England, and change those notes into some other currency, but there is nothing to say that if I hold a 10s. note I can go to the Bank and demand coins which are in current circulation. I support the Amendment on those grounds. I want it definitely stated that people can change their notes, specifically the holders of 10s. notes, and that they can submit them to the Bank of England, and can have them changed for notes or coins in current circulation and of a lower denomination.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I understand that the point which the first Amendment seeks to elucidate is the meaning of the promise to pay which is upon the notes. The point was mentioned on Second Reading, and I fully understand the wish of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) to elucidate it, since it is not very easy to follow.
The promise to pay is a contract or acknowledgment of a debt by the Bank. The important practical effect of this arises when notes of a particular series have been demonetised or called in and have ceased to be legal tender. A note may cease to be legal tender and it may not be possible to tender it for payments where payments have to be made in legal tender, but such a note can still be cashed by presentation at the Bank.
This is not an academic point. Hon. Members will recall that certain notes of higher denominations were called in for what I think was good and sufficient reason. That did not mean that those who held those notes after a certain date found them valueless. If they presented them to the Bank they would be paid. That is the meaning of the promise to pay.
The second point, which arises on the second Amendment, is whether, on tendering a note, coin can be demanded. The answer is "No." The Committee will appreciate that it is "No" for a very good reason. If one were to say that the presentation of any number of these notes at the Bank entitled one to payment in coin, whether coin of one's own choice, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) or of the Bank's choice, it would theoretically mean that the holders of notes had an unlimited right to demand unlimited change. If that were carried to an extreme, it would cause some inconvenience. As the Committee knows, from time to time apparent shortages of certain coins occur, and the Royal Mint does its best to supply the demand. I have had representations made to me from certain parts of the country on this very point during the last week or two.
The task of the Royal Mint in maintaining an adequate supply of coinage


would be made very much more difficult if the holders of notes had the right to demand unlimited quantities of coinage on tendering the notes, and I cannot see what useful purpose would be served by conferring this right upon them. The right which exists—and the right which becomes important from a practical point of view—is that of tendering a note or promise to pay by the Bank of England and of being given in exchange currency which is legal tender. That is the vital point and I think that the Committee will agree that that is the matter which we want to safeguard and which, I think, is adequately safeguarded by the present position.

Mr. Norman Smith: Assuming that this Amendment is agreed to and that the public take advantage of it, the Financial Secretary's argument is that it would create embarrassment, but this is England and things do not happen in that way in this country. It would create an appalling amount of embarrassment to all five clearing banks if everyone at once demanded cash across the counter, but those things do not happen here. The fact that the clearing banks are able to lend up to eight or 10 times what they have is a sufficient answer to the argument that there would be embarrassment. I think that what we ask for is reasonable.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is a great deal of difference between the amount of coin and the amount of notes in circulation. The same risk is not to be feared in respect of notes because there are probably not sufficient resources available to individuals to create that situation, but with the much more restricted amount of coinage it is—at any rate theoretically—possible that the creation of the right could create that situation, and there seems to be no practical point to be served in creating it. The only thing upon which I agree with the hon. Member is his very clear statement that this is England.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I think that we are all agreed that there is not a great deal in this, but there is one point in the Financial Secretary's argument which I did not follow. As I understand it, he said that we could not have a situation where the holder of a note which was to be no longer legal

tender could insist upon the coin for it, but he could get another note which was legal tender. In that case, if the holder wanted the coin he could then take the new note back and get it, so there is really no safeguard against the terrible danger, which the Financial Secretary suggested, that people might wish to change all their notes into coins. But perhaps I have misunderstood him?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am so sorry—it is my fault for not being clearer upon this. There is no distinction. Neither the legal tender note nor the demonetised note entitles one to that.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Norman Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert:
Provided that payment to a clearing bank for any notes called in from that bank under this subsection shall not have the consequential effect of diminishing the clearing bank's holding of cash at the Bank of England.
This is a very much more serious Amendment and deals with matters of wider scope and of very great import, because under this Bill, for the first time, it is possible for the Bank of England to call in £1 and 10s. notes for the purpose of demonetising them. There was no such power before.
Under the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, the Bank could call them in but could not demonetise them. That point was made very clear in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied this Bill when it was first introduced about a year ago. Paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum contained words which I submit to the Committee are rather significant, although not so significant as their omission from the Explanatory Memorandum in respect of the Bill this year. These are the words which have been omitted from the Explanatory Memorandum of a year ago:
The Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, gives the Bank power to call in, but not to demonetize, £1 and 10s. notes. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the Bank of England to call in and demonetize their bank notes of any denomination.
The omission of that phrase this year, I can only suppose, was the result of a desire on the part of the Government to conceal from the public—and it may be from the House—exactly what the Government were up to. If this Clause be


enacted, then for the first time the Bank of England will hold in its hands the power to call in and demonetise £1 and 10s. notes, which constitute no less than 82½ per cent., by face value, of the total notes in circulation.
It is a very serious thing, for two reasons, to give the Bank of England that power. The first is much less important than the second, although the first is important enough, in all conscience. This Clause is serious because it enables the monetary authorities, who are the Treasury and the Bank of England, to put their heads together to reduce the amount of currency created and put into circulation by a publicly-owned body, the Bank of England.
As I propose to show, the inevitable corollary of that would be that the commercial banks—the so-called "big five" clearing banks affiliated to the London Bankers' Clearing House, joint stock companies owned by absentee shareholders—would be able, to the extent that these bank notes are demonetised, to create and circulate their own particular form of currency, in this case either commercial bills or, strange though it may seem, Treasury bills. It is a serious thing when the Government introduce legislation in circumstances which expose them to the accusation that they are trying to do it behind the public's back, by editing the Explanatory Memorandum and cutting out chunks from it in such a way as to hide a very relevant fact.
There is another and more serious fact. At the present time, a recession in the United States and the possible increase in the depth of that recession is a favourite topic of writers in the financial columns of newspapers, and has been so for the best part of 12 months. There is evidence that if there be a diminution in the proportion of the total currency circulating in the form of bank notes, and if that diminution be accompanied by an increase in the privately-created currency in the form of commercial bills—in other words, if we have a smaller proportion of bank notes comprising the currency in circulation—then we have a condition which is favourable to deep depression and slump.
If I can show, Sir Charles, that the effect of this Clause would be to take away the currency-creating power of the

publicly-owned Bank and transfer it to privately-owned banks—greatly to their profit—and can further show that its effect will be to impose a condition favourable to a slump in this country at a time like the present, I submit I shall have made out what is really a very substantial case against this Clause, and a very substantial case for my Amendment, which seeks to put a limitation on demonetisation, namely, that it shall not have the consequential effect of diminishing the clearing bank's holding of credit at the Bank of England.

6.0 p.m.

I propose to trace very briefly the series of events—with which nobody is better acquainted than two of the hon. Members whom I see opposite—which would occur if Clause 1 (5) became law and the Bank of England proceeded to demonetise £1 and 10s. notes on any substantialscale. There is no need to specify the quantity of notes which they might demonetise. Let me hypothecate that they wish to demonetise £x million of £1 and 10s. notes, and that they notify the Midland Bank, saying, "We are calling these notes in and we are going to demonetise them."

The first thing that would happen, as is provided in subsection (5), is that the Bank of England, proposing to demonetise and call in those notes, would have to pay the Midland Bank for them. It would have to give the Midland Bank a substantial consideration in exchange. This Clause lays it down that the Bank of England may call them in,
on payment of the face value thereof…
How does the Bank of England pay the face value of £x million of £1 and 10s. notes, having called them in from the Midland Bank? The Bank of England will merely give the Midland Bank a draft on its own banking department to the face value of £x million. In come the notes, and they are demonetised, but because they are demonetised there is a state of disequilibrium in the issue department of the Bank of England. £x million of notes have been called in, and those notes, by law, are covered by securities. Therefore, the securities have to come out of the issue department of the Bank of England. That is the inevitable first consequence. Those securities go into the banking department of


the Bank of England, where they have to cover the draft which the Bank of England has paid for £xmillion worth of Treasury notes which they have called in for demonetisation.

The transaction does not end there. If it did, it would not make sense. Next, securities which have been transferred from the issue department to the banking department are sold on the open market by the Bank of England, in an operation of the kind with which some hon. Members are quite familiar but which is not understood by the great majority of people whose education has been effected mainly by the newspapers, which do not deal in this sort of thing. The securities are sold on the open market and the draft which the Bank of England has paid the Midland Bank for the demonetised notes must then necessarily come back to the Bank of England for cancellation.

Now let us look at the situation from the point of view of the Midland Bank. Like everybody else, they work to a certain safety rule, which is not what it used to be 25 or 30 years ago. The safety rule used to be rather simpler. The clearing banks or commercial banks—the "big five"—could then lend more money than they had in their tills. There is nothing very esoteric about that. The system is quite well understood, and it has been going on for a long time. But there was a limit to the extent to which they could lend more than they had in their tills, and that limit used to be expressed by the straightforward convention of a proportion of the banks' total deposits. It used to be that the total deposits could be roughly 10 times the cash which the banks had in their tills, but it is a convention of the City of London and of the British financial world that the word "cash" does not only mean notes or coins but also means their balances at the Bank of England. So in the old days cash in notes or coins plus their balances at the Bank of England could be multiplied by about 10, and that fixed the limit of the total deposits they were able to create by lending at interest what they had not got.

However, in recent years there has been a change in the safety ratio. The safety ratio is no longer a straightforward relationship between, on the one hand, coins, notes and balances at the Bank of England, and, on the other hand, total

deposits. It is now expressed in a fraction, and the numerator of that fraction is cash plus money market assets. An entirely new factor has come into the picture, money market assets. Cash plus money market assets over total deposits is now not supposed to exceed a fraction roughly of the order of 30 per cent.

Now here we see where the sinister import of this Bill comes into play. The result of the demonetisation transaction by the time the Bank of England has carried out quite automatically the operations which it would have to carry out, calling in notes to demonetise them, is that the Midland Bank finds itself with less than it used to have by way of cash—less because, in the first place, it parted with notes and got in exchange for them a draft with which the Bank of England paid for the notes. To follow up, the consequential result was that it parted with the draft; and so the commercial bank finds itself in this happy position that it has less cash at the Bank of England but its total deposits remain unchanged. It is, therefore, able, without upsetting its safety ratio, to create more of the assets which are called money market assets. In other words, it is enabled to create more by way of bills, either commercial bills, or Treasury bills.

Thus the commercial bank, to the extent that it has less notes, demonetised under this Bill, is able to create its own form of currency, which is loans, which are advantageous to itself and profitable to itself because the paper which it creates out of nothing bears interest. It has substituted £1 or 10s. notes, on which it had to pay interest to the Bank of England, with bills, commercial or Treasury, on which it charges interest, and it has done that without in any way upsetting its safety ratio, being the conventional fraction of which I spoke just now.

That will be the effect of this Measure. The effect, in the first place, is that to the extent that there is demonetisation the total volume of circulating currency which was profitable to a nationalised institution has in fact been diminished, but that diminution can be, and no doubt would be, compensated exactly by the creation of a new form of currency, namely, bills, which would bear interest and be profitable to private concerns owned by absentee shareholders who live by owning and not by working.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the party on this side of the Committee does not get "het up" by a Measure of this kind. One would suppose that the party on this side of the Committee is quite indifferent, when it comes to currency, whether the currency is created by a publicly-owned organisation, and is therefore profitable to the community, or whether the currency is created by a privately-owned organisation and is therefore profitable to some joint stock company which consists of absentee shareholders living without working, living by owing. I should have thought that the Labour Party would have been very keenly interested in that. However, I should be out of order if I proceeded to examine the possible reasons why the Labour Party is not "het up" about that.

I propose, therefore, to turn to the second aspect—the rather more sinister aspect of the problem. The net result of the Bill, if Clause 1 be enacted without any Amendment, will be that the currency which takes the form of £1 and 10s. notes will be a smaller proportion of the total circulating currency. That is so because some of it will have been demonetised, leaving the way open for an equivalent amount of privately-created currency, bearing interest, to take its place.

Let me explain the experience of this and other countries, particularly this country, when the notes in circulation are a substantially smaller proportion of the total currency, the total currency being bank deposits plus notes plus money market assets. When notes become a substantially smaller proportion of the total circulating currency, then we have a condition favourable to mass unemployment—what is generally known as and used to be called a slump but is now known as a recession.

In this connection I think I ought to give the Committee the results of some of my researches on this subject. I will keep these results as short as I can, but this is a very relevant point. Averaging over 1921 to 1925, the Bank of England issue department had £399·6 million of notes in circulation against total deposits at the London clearing banks in that epoch of £1,718·4 million. In that period the percentage was 23·2 per cent. notes to total

deposits. I take another period—1925–28. The percentage had not varied very much; it was 22·6 per cent. I take yet another period—1946–51; and it was still 22·6 per cent. The percentage is not very different now.

The period 1929–33 was the depth of the inter-war depression—the world-wide depression which the party opposite managed to lay at the door of the Labour Government of those days but which was in fact world-wide. In that period the notes in circulation were £361·3 million against deposits of £1,820·9 million. The percentage had fallen, therefore, from 22 or 23 per cent. to 19·6 per cent.

At a time when, as I have said, financial writers in all newspapers of all party political colours have, for the best part of 12 months, been speculating on the prospects of a United States depression in 1954; when even Ministers of the Crown and right hon. Gentlemen who used to be Ministers speak and write about those prospects; when we know that re-armament is tapering off; when we know that the activity of industry, as measured by what industry does to equip the Fighting Forces, is declining, I submit that it is a very sinister thing that Her Majesty's Government should come forward with a Bill of this kind proposing to place in the hands of the Treasury and the Bank of England the means of reducing substantially the proportion of the total currency which is represented by the currency notes in circulation when, as experience has shown, that is a condition of things favourable to depression.

It is bad enough that the Conservative Party should look after their friends. I suppose the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer put their heads together, along with officials at the Treasury, to do what Fagin used to do in "Oliver Twist"; for he used to devise means whereby his friends could run little bits of business profitable to themselves. He organised what he called the "kinchin' lay," which consisted of waylaying children on errands for their parents and taking from the children the money which they clutched in their fingers.

The Chairman: We should be discussing the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Smith: I can only suppose that the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer spend their time devising methods whereby they can enable their friends—thejoint stock companies dealing in finance—to create currency which at the moment is created by the publicly-owned Bank of England. If I describe this Bill as a sort of "kinchin' lay," I am not far wrong; it is something like that. Here the Government are taking advantage of the lack of interest among most people in these matters—a lack of interest born of their complexity. I have quoted in the House before—and it is a quotation worth repeating—the words of the founder of the dynasty of Rothschild, who wrote, at the end of the 18th Century:
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws.
The Government are taking good care, during the brief period for which they are destined to occupy those benches, to take as much business as they can away from the publicly-owned finance institution, the Bank of England, and hand it over to their friends. They are doing it by a camouflaged method, a method which looks so innocent; for this Bill is said to be for the calling in and demonetising of £1 and 10s. notes. I move my Amendment because if it were incorporated in the Clause it would take out of their hands—

Mr. A. C. M. Spearman: Could the hon. Gentleman give any estimate of how much gain he thinks there would be for the private banks?

Mr. Smith: Yes. The gain would be firstly what the private banks pay the Bank of England for notes. That is measured in the profit of the note issue, which is dealt with statutorily in the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928. That Act laid down that the profits of the note issue should not accrue to the then privately-owned Bank of England but should accrue to the Treasury. There are, therefore, profits in the Bank of England note issue, and there are certainly further profits for commercial banks in lending money which they have not got, in making an entry in their books crediting a borrower with the amount of the loan and proceeding to

charge him interest on it. I wish I could lend money I have not got, but they will not let me do it, and if I tried to do it I should be prosecuted either as a forger or as a coiner—I do not know which, but I should certainly be prosecuted. This is a very profitable business for the people concerned.
I submit that the Committee should accept my Amendment. What have the Government to worry about? If what I am saying is untrue, they can accept the Amendment. If what I am saying is true, then my party, the Labour Party, ought to rise up in their wrath and denounce this preposterous Bill.

Mr. Bence: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) and I do so with much trepidation. I am very thankful, Sir Charles, that you listened attentively to my hon. Friend's thesis, because I feel sure that you must have a complete understanding of it and that if I keep my eye on you, you will immediately restrain me if my speech tends to get out of order.
I started my apprenticeship as an engineer, and if engineers discover that things are missing they always know where to look for them. During my apprenticeship, all my seniors in the engineering industry and my employers, too, seemed to have an awful lot of money, but when I completed my apprenticeship and went out into the industry to stand on my own feet, I discovered that nobody had any money. I always wondered where it had gone. I found no one who had burnt it, and robberies had not been on the increase. My employers, I discovered, were becoming increasingly indebted to the banks. Everybody seemed to have begun to lose his money. Where had all the notes gone? When I was an apprentice some of the senior men were getting 21 £1 notes every week. When I finished my apprenticeship, we were lucky to get three £1 notes every week. Since I could find no one else who was getting them, who had them? I asked my hon. Friend about this—

The Chairman: This Amendment is concerned only with diminishing the holding of the Bank of England and not an individual's holding.

Mr. Bence: This demonetisation, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, has given me the clue. Here is the Bank of England taking powers unto itself to take our notes, which we have managed to collect, and to demonetise them. It seems to me that that may have been done before, and that is where the notes went. I agree with my hon. Friend that if the Government are giving the Bank of England power to destroy these notes, some of us are going to be very short of them. I do not want again to go through what I went through between the wars.
The banks are going to find themselves terribly short of notes if the Bank of England starts calling them in and demonetising them without giving new ones in their place. If the banks are short of ready notes to pay over the counter, they will have to start calling in their bank credits given by way of overdrafts. I know something about that. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very serious matter indeed. I am not a banker by profession, but I am sorry for the chairmen of the national banks if there is such a shortage of notes in the country that the ratio cannot be maintained unless a notice is sent to the local bank managements to call in their credit.
If the Bank of England were to call in 1,000 million notes, there might be a run on the banks, and overdrafts would have to be called in, all the business men would be broke again, and we should be back where we were. I ask the Financial Secretary to give us an assurance that there will not be a repetition of the mysterious disappearance of notes which occurred between 1919 and 1922 by means of some mechanism in the banks. I do not understand what it was, although I can understand the most intricate mechanism of machinery. This is something beyond my experience. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will help me to get rid of the fears that I have that the demonetisation of these notes may lead once again to the mysterious disappearance of notes which occurred when I was a youth.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can reassure the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) at once that neither this Clause nor the powers which, as I shall

explain, it replaces can have the exciting but somewhat alarming consequences which he forecast. He may recall, if he was in the Committee when we were dealing with the last Amendment, that I pointed out then that notes which were to be called in could be taken to the Bank of England and legal tender could be obtained for them.

Mr. Bence: I appreciate that, but that did not happen at the time of which I was speaking. They disappeared. It was not a question of handing in notes and getting money for them; the notes had gone. What happened to them?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is rather a difficult speculation and a most interesting one which I do not think you, Sir Charles, would permit me to follow up. This Bill deals with recall and demonetisation and not with the disappearance of notes.
I suppose that all of us who speak frequently in the House have certain tricks of speech which hon. Members notice. I find that in the speeches of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) the word "sinister" appears in almost every third sentence he utters. His speech this evening was full of drawing "sinister"—to use his own phrase—implications from what is very largely a technical provision.
It may be that, in the first place, the hon. Member did not perhaps fully appreciate that there is nothing new in the substance of this matter. He referred, no doubt by a slip of the tongue, to this provision providing for the first time for the recall of £1 and 10s. notes. I am quite certain that the hon. Member, with his considerable experience of these matters, knows that power has existed for the calling in of £1 and 10s. notes since the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, and so far as notes of higher value are concerned, the power has existed since late in the war, in respect of £5 notes, under Defence Regulation 7AB. Therefore, the effect broadly of Clause 1 (5), which the hon. Member's Amendment seeks to amend, is to put this pre-existing power on the same basis. That is the basis of this Clause, and it enables us, as he will see if he looks at the later stages of the Bill, among other things, to get rid of two Defence (Finance) Regulations.
Therefore, we are not, as one might think when listening to the hon. Member, sailing in uncharted and perhaps sinister seas. We are simply providing that pre-existing powers of recall shall be put into one Clause. If this power of recall can raise such sinister implications as the hon. Member seems to think, it seems remarkable that there have been no proceedings even in respect of £1 and 10s. notes during the 25 years since 1928 by which the hon. Member could have succeeded in both demonstrating their danger and securing their repeal.
The provision, of course, has none of the economic significance which the hon. Member sought to read into it. I may perhaps comment on the terms of his Amendment. It provides that
…payment to a clearing bank for any notes called in from that bank under this subsection shall not have the consequential effect of diminishing the clearing bank's holding of cash at the Bank of England.
To try to legislate against consequential effects is reminiscent of the legislative methods of His late Majesty King Canute because one cannot legislate against consequential events. But in point of fact this is merely putting into one subsection the necessary power of recall.
I commented on an earlier Amendment on the occasion when the power of recall was used some years ago by the late administration for a very good reason. It may be that it will have to be exercised again. In any event, where the recall takes place from the clearing banks in the normal way, the notes called in will be replaced by notes of the new issue, because in the ordinary way of business these banks will require an adequate supply of notes for carrying on their business. Therefore, the economic effects in these circumstances are precisely nil.
Nor would this particular provision be at all apt for effecting—if anyone wanted to effect them—the rather complicated series of economic transactions which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South appeared to contemplate. This is simply a provision for the regulation and control of the notes issued. It is a technical provision to enable some quite difficult administrative problems to be dealt with. That is its purpose, and even if it were possible to legislate against consequential effects,

these are not consequential effects which will be consequential upon this particular Measure.

Mr. Norman Smith: I cannot let the Financial Secretary get away with a reply like that, which assumes that the Committee does not know anything about this Bill, the Act of 1928 or history. The Financial Secretary himself does not understand what it is all about, nor is he familiar with the background of this.

6.30 p.m.

The Financial Secretary began by assuring my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) that even if the notes were demonetised—this is what he said; it will be on record in Hansard tomorrow—the holder of the notes could still exchange them. But who will be the owner of the notes under this legislation? It will be the Bank of England. It is the Bank of England that is given power to call the notes in and demonetise. Is the Financial Secretary trying to tell the Committee that the Bank of England will still be able to exchange the notes with itself?

That part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply is utter nonsense. It is not the only nonsense in this reply. He denied the accuracy of what I said. I said that it has not been possible in the past to call in and demonetise £1 and 10s. notes. The Financial Secretary denied that. One of us must be right and the other wrong. He said that the power to demonetise notes has existed in the past and that it was conferred by the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member himself used the expression "call in." So did I. If he is now using that expression as synonymous with "demonetisation," perhaps he will explain it.

Mr. Smith: The Financial Secretary—he will see it in HANSARD tomorrow morning—said that the power to demonetise had always existed in the case of £1 and 10s. notes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not going to be misrepresented. I used the expression "call in" quite carefully, and the hon. Member will find that in HANSARD.

Mr. Smith: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman was answering an argument which I had not put up. My argument


was based, not upon the calling in, but upon the demonetisation, and the Financial Secretary had the audacity to call in support of his very bad case the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928. He wanted the Committee to believe that the Bill marks no significant departure from that Act. If that is so, will he explain why the original Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill a year ago, which he has thought fit to alter at the end of 1953, as compared with the end of 1952, contained these words, which I quoted before but which have since been taken out:
The Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, gives the Bank power to call in, but not to demonetize, £1 and 10s. notes.
Those are the facts, and nothing that the Financial Secretary said answered my case in that respect. He wanted to bluff the Committee into supposing that the Bill makes no difference so far as concerns the demonetisation, as a result of which my hon. Friend the former journeyman engineer could not get work.
The Financial Secretary went on to say—it sounds so clever coming from a lawyer, but it is such nonsense to ordinary plain men—that one cannot legislate against consequential effects, and he cited the late King Canute as evidence of that. He said that the economic effect of the exchanging of these bank notes would be precisely nil. But it is not an

exchanging of notes. It is the destruction of notes, a power which did not exist under the 1928 Act but will exist under this Bill when it becomes an Act. It is the destruction of notes, as my hon. Friend the former engineer rightly pointed out, which constitutes the danger.

The Financial Secretary adduced against me Canute. I adduce against him the Cunliffe Committee. The Cunliffe Committee decided on the deflation that began at the end of 1920, which put my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East and many others out of work. We could have legislated against those consequential effects. The slump of 1920–21 was the direct outcome of deflation. I do not have to prove that. It was in the report of the Macmillan Committee on Finance and Industry, which was appointed in 1930 and reported in 1931. It is all there in that Committee's report. Do we have to go over that again?

I take this opportunity of protesting against the levity and inaccuracy which the Financial Secretary displayed and the apparent contempt with which he chooses to treat the Committee. This is a serious subject, and he is not going to get away on that sort of thing.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 165.

Division No. 22.]
AYES
[6.35 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McGhee, H. G.



Foot, M. M.
Orbach, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Keenan, W.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Mr. Norman Smith and Mr. Bench


Kerr, H. W.
Viant, S. P.





NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Fisher, Nigel


Arbuthnot, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Campbell, Sir David
Ford, Mrs, Patricia


Baldwin, A. E.
Carr, Robert
Foster, John


Banks, Col. C.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Barlow, Sir John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Cole, Norman
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Colegate, W. A.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Glover, D.


Black, C. W.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gower, H. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Braine, B. R.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harden, J. R. E.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Darling Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hare, Hon J. H.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hay, John


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Duthie, W. S.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bullard, D. G.
Fell, A.
Heath, Edward


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Finlay, Graeme
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)




Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Neave, Airey
Soames, Capt. C.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholls, Harmar
Spearman, A. C. M.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Speir, R. M.


Holt, A. F.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hope, Lord John
Oakshott, H. D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Odey, G. W.
Stevens, G. P.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Osborne, C.
Summers, G. S.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Page, R. G.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Jennings, Sir Roland
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Kaberry, D.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lambton, Viscount
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Turner, H. F. L.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Powell, J. Enoch
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Vosper, D. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Redmayne, M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Renton, D. L. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


McAdden, S. J.
Robertson, Sir David
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


McKibbin, A. J.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Russell, R. S.
Wills, G.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Sholefield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Scott, R. Donald
Wood, Hon. R.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.



Medlicott, Brig. F.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Snadden, W. McN.
Major Conant and Mr. Richard Thompson.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(AMOUNT OF BANK OB ENGLAND NOTE ISSUE.)

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out "either," and to insert "the Commons."
This Amendment, which I hope the Financial Secretary will be prepared to accept, raises a substantial issue. It seeks to take away the power which the Bill at present gives to the Upper House to veto an increase in the fiduciary issue at the end of two years. We say that it is entirely wrong to give to an unrepresentative House this power over the whole economic policy of the Government. That is, in effect, what the Bill does.
Clause 2 (8), by virtue of the words
…either House of Parliament
enables the Upper House—this I think is not in dispute—to say "No" when a Government with a majority in this House has decided to extend the period of the increase in the fiduciary issue beyond two years.
It is perfectly true, as we agreed on Second Reading, that an increase in the note issue nowadays is not ordinarily the cause of an expansion in economic activity, or of inflation in certain circumstances. But it is equally true that the

expansion very often cannot take place without an increase in the note issue also following it. In a similar way, no doubt, the petrol in a motor vehicle is normally the cause of the engine running. But unless there is also some oil the engine will soon seize up and a crisis will occur.

I thought the Financial Secretary was a little inaccurate when he fell, as he sometimes does, into rather vague language on the Second Reading and said:
Today it is fairly generally realised that the size of the fiduciary issue has very little to do with the general broad questions of inflation or deflation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 1328.]
It is true to say it is not the cause, but I do not think it is true to say that it has very little to do with it. Perhaps I may take the opportunity at this point to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. He became a Privy Councillor during the Recess, which I am sure is a just reward for having, with great patience, defended so many indefensible actions of the Government in the last two years.

The situation which we envisage is of this kind. Supposing there were a Labour Government with a majority in this House, which came to power at a time when there was considerable unemployment caused by the actions of a Government of the party opposite. That is a


situation which might well occur, Sir Charles, though I do not expect you to agree with that, because we do not expect you to have an opinion on these matters. But that is the situation that might occur, and, indeed, it might occur during the course of the present year.

In that situation the new Government, in order to reduce unemployment, would, if they were well advised, start on an expansionary policy and initiate an expansion of activity generally. Unemployment, one would hope, would go down. But at that point, under the Bill as it stands, it would be perfectly possible for another place to exercise a veto by praying against an Order which would be necessary to continue an increase of the note issue already in existence. That is what we are objecting to in this Amendment.

It is all the more fantastic to give this kind of power to the Upper House, because financial and economic policy has always been the special prerogative of the Commons. Indeed, this House ought to be a vigilant guardian of those privileges and prerogatives. For that was the power of this House which was established against the Sovereign and the other place as long ago as the 17th Century and was reaffirmed against the Upper House in the constitutional struggles from 1909 to 1911. It seems to some of us, therefore, that this provision is contrary to the general doctrine that this House shall have sovereign power over financial and economic issues. To quote Erskine May at the beginning of page 39:
The most important power vested in any branch of the legislature is the right of imposing taxes upon the people and of voting money for the exigencies of the public service. The exercise of this right by the Commons is practically a law for the annual meeting of Parliament…and it may also be said to give to the Commons the chief authority in the state.
It may be that the Financial Secretary will say that all this relates strictly to Revenue and Supply and not, in the letter—though perhaps he might admit it in the spirit—to the note issue and the matters covered by this Bill. It is the fact, however, and relevant to this argument, that the profit on the fiduciary issue under the 1928 Act is revenue of the Exchequer. I am sure that the Financial Secretary would not question that. It is ordinary Budget revenue, and accrues to the Exchequer just like any other yield

from taxation. Erskine May also says on page 780:
The modern practice in respect of the Commons' financial privileges is based upon the resolution of 1671—
You will recall, Sir Charles, that this was just before an unhappy period of Tory Government under James II, but I only mention that in passing. The resolution was as follows:
That in all aids given to the king by the Commons, the rate or tax ought not to be altered by the Lords.
I do not think it could be denied, even speaking literally and strictly, that the revenue derived from the profit on the fiduciary issue is "aid" voted to the Sovereign by this House. Therefore, I think the case is strong, even if we take it in a literal and not a general sense.

In attempting weakly to reply to this argument on the Second Reading, the Financial Secretary said something to the effect that, whatever the merits, this was done under the Defence Regulations, and it was also done in more or less the same way under the 1928 Act; under both those provisions the Upper House had the power to cancel an increase in the note issue. That seems to us to be no answer to the substantial point. First of all, as far as the Defence Regulations are concerned, they were purely temporary arrangements, in force during the war, when a great many of the normal constitutional controls over finance, and indeed some normal privileges of this House, were suspended. In those days we used to conduct expenditure by a Vote of Credit which cut across most of the normal financial arrangements. Therefore, now that we are legislating permanently, it is largely irrelevant what were the temporary provisions in force under the Defence Regulations.

When the Financial Secretary quotes the 1928 Act—I am assuming for the moment that he is right in thinking that additional legislation would be required under that Act for an increase in the note issue—it is rather remarkable for him, as the great opponent of delegated legislation for so many years when he was in Opposition, to quote that Act—which required new legislation—as a defence for making this power available simply by Order under the Bill which he is now bringing before the House. It seems to me that he has all the zeal of a convert for delegated legislation.

Our real objection to the Bill is that we are opposed in principle to the grant of power to a Tory majority in the Upper House to veto the economic policy of a Government having a majority in the Commons. It is no answer to say that this was done by a Tory Government in 1928 which introduced an Act of that kind. Obviously that does not meet our point or satisfy us in the least. It is perfectly true that a Tory House of Lords threw out the Finance Bill of 1909, but I do not think anyone would argue that as a reason for repealing the original Parliament Act today.

I do not think that so far the Financial Secretary can impugn the argument. But he may fall back on saying that, although these powers are open to objection in principle, nevertheless this kind of situation would not arise nowadays; that the other place would never abuse their powers in the way I am suggesting. But that seems to me a rather frivolous and light-hearted attitude towards legislation. We should not put on to the Statute Book powers that will never be used. If we think they should not be used, we ought not to put them on the Statute Book, and we ought to be scrupulously vigilant in defending the privileges of this House in matters of economic and financial policy.

We do not have to go back to 1909 or 1911 to find an occasion when the Upper House resisted a major Measure which had been passed by the Commons. It resisted effectively for a time the will of the electorate and this House in the case of the steel nationalisation Bill in the years 1949 and 1950; so we shall not be satisfied by a casual argument of that kind.

On the assumption that the Financial Secretary will not accept our Amendment straight away, though I hope he will, and even if he thinks that no harm would be done by leaving the Bill as it stands, what objection can there be from his point of view in putting this power solely in the hands of this House? Even if the right hon. Gentleman takes a rather light-hearted view of the privileges of the House of Commons, why should he want to insist on granting this power to the Upper House?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. But if he refuses, and since I can see no good

ground for obstinately refusing to accept this arrangement, some people will draw the inevitable conclusion that the Government are seeking to resuscitate and reinforce the power of another place even in these economic, financial and money matters.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has put the case for this Amendment with great clarity and great force, but, nevertheless, there are two or three arguments which I wish to address to the Committee, particularly because the Financial Secretary ventured, during the Second Reading debate, to address strictures to me concerning the argument which I put forward on that occasion.
What I think is most noticeable on rereading the speech made by the Financial Secretary on that occasion is the fact that he did not attempt to justify the merits of the present proposal at all. He merely sought to point out that there was no startling constitutional innovation in the contents of the present Bill. He reserved for himself until we came to the Committee stage the defence which I suppose he is going to put forward to these proposals on their merits.
If I may underline the questions which my right hon. Friend has put to the Financial Secretary, I hope we shall now at last have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman to some of the question which I and other of my hon. Friends put to him during the Second Reading debate, and particularly to the following question. Is it seriously intended that the House of Lords should have the power, by a mere Resolution, to veto the will of the Government of the day and of this House with regard to an increase in the fiduciary issue?
If it is not intended that the House of Lords should have that power, why, then, is it thought necessary or desirable to ask this House to give the other place that power? I still think, as I thought on Second Reading, that this is a matter of very serious constitutional importance. I am not particularly concerned with what the position was under the Act of 1928, which, after all, was an Act passed by a Conservative Government.
We must remember that the constitutional relationship between the two Houses has undergone a considerable change since then. During the last few years, and particularly since the war, there have been some very important debates about the proper position of the House of Lords in our legislative arrangements. It is in the light of the present doctrine and the present well understood relationship between the two Houses that we must tonight seriously consider whether or not it is right, in 1954, to give the House of Lords power by a vote, passed perhaps capriciously in a small House, to wreck the whole economic and financial machinery of the Government. That is what we are being asked to do today.
Since 1928, and, indeed, since 1945, there have been two significant changes in the relations between the two Houses. First, there was the change made by the Parliament Act, 1949, which considerably curtailed the powers of the other place. The second change—the results of which have, perhaps, been too little observed by constitutional lawyers, Members of this House and others—was the giving of increased powers to the Government of the day to deal with delegated legislation.
Whether or not one is in favour of delegated legislation the fact remains that every Government today has much wider powers of delegated legislation than they had years ago. That is accepted in a great many quarters as being necessary in our present economic conditions provided, of course, that there are adequate Parliamentary safeguards. To a great extent, the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, codified and modernised the law of delegated legislation by making the same kind of procedure applicable to all Statutory Instruments, which was a useful and desirable thing to do.
One of the things that was done under that Act—and in looking back at the debate which took place in 1945 it seems to me that it was, in a sense, done inadvisedly—was to give the House of Lords and this House equally parallel powers of veto on all matters of delegated legislation. I doubt whether that was a wise thing to do, because one reflects that one of the things we did by that Measure was to give the House of Lords a power of veto on financial.

economic and all other matters, and in a sense, therefore, to restore to the House of Lords some of the powers which had been deliberately taken from it by the Parliament Act, 1911, and which were further diminished in 1949.
I wonder whether the country was aware of what happened. As the law runs, the House of Lords has the technical power, by passing an appropriate Prayer, to annul any Statutory Instrument, regardless of its importance and regardless of the wishes of this House.

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is going rather beyond the present Amendment in discussing the Statutory Instruments Act.

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Sir Charles, I think that I am in order because Clause 2 (8) provides, in effect, that Treasury power to increase the fiduciary issue up to two years
shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
The object of this Amendment is to take out, for the purposes of this Bill, the ordinary operation of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, and to curtail it. Therefore, if this Amendment is accepted—as I hope it will be, because it is a very serious Amendment—the effect will be, pro tanto, that of the modification of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. With great respect, therefore, Sir Charles, I submit that I am in order in addressing these arguments on this occasion, because this Bill is in the nature of a money Bill and affects the finances of the country. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to accept this Amendment. Statutory Instruments dealing with finance are in a different category from other Statutory Instruments falling under the Act.
I hope that I am not wearying the Committee, but I was trying to explain the law as it stands with regard to Statutory Instruments. I was going on to say that another matter which seems to me of great significance is that, in fact, the House of Lords has never as yet ventured—indeed, I am tempted to say dared—to pass a Prayer to annul any Statutory Instrument of any kind.
That is a matter which ought to be underlined because considerable time


has now elapsed since we have had this experience of delegated legislation, and for over six years there was a Government in office which had not a majority in the other place; and, therefore, it would have been open to the other place, on various occasions, had it been so minded, to wreck or seriously interfere with the legislation and administrative programme of a Government to which it was hostile. That opportunity may occur again before very long.
I believe, therefore, that there is a convention in the course of growing up the effect of which is that the House of Lords does not exercise its powers to veto Statutory Instruments. I would hope that we have reached a stage in our Parliamentary conventions similar to the convention which had grown up for about 150 years before the House of Lords threw out Mr. Lloyd George's Finance Bill of 1909 and produced the constitutional crisis of 1910 and 1911.
Be that as it may, it does not seem to me good enough that we should rely on constitutional conventions because if a constitutional convention should be observed in the breach rather than the observance, as was the case in 1909, it leads to unfortunate constitutional crises which are better avoided if we can do so. Therefore, while I take the view that it is very unlikely and would certainly be quite unwarrantable for the House of Lords ever to attempt to exercise the power which this Clause of the Bill, as it stands, will confer upon it, I think it will be much better, in the interests of honesty, reality and common sense to exclude the possibility.
If we were to do so we should not be doing more than restoring the de facto position, namely the kind of position as it was under the Parliament Act, 1911. After all, it is commonly accepted that the House of Lords has some very desirable functions to perform in our constitutional arrangements. It is also accepted that there should be a complete limitation on the powers of the other place to interfere with the exclusive right of this House to deal with what are broadly referred to as money Bills.
That is the phrase intended in general parlance, though perhaps not in strict legal theory, to cover not merely Bills which impose taxation but also Bills and

Statutory Instruments passed under Bills which affect the economy and financial arrangements of the realm. This Bill is quite clearly of that character. Therefore, it seems to me that the Bill as it stands without this Amendment will be a monstrosity and a contradiction of the constitutional arrangements about which we have had at least one major crisis and about which we do not want any more.
It seems to me that the sensible, prudent and statesmanlike course for the Government to take today would be to assent to the arguments which have been addressed and to accept the Amendment because the limitation which we want to impose in the Bill is not on something which is required by the Government or intended to be acted upon. Or is it intended that it should be acted upon? That is what I want to know. Is it intended that the House of Lords should be given a real power or not, because if that is so it is a really dangerous matter?
What the Government are asking for is either monstrously dangerous or totally unnecessary. I wish the Financial Secretary to answer. I hope that we shall not pass on from this matter until we have had a thoroughly searching inquiry into what are the intentions of the Government behind this proposal.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Bence: I wish to support what has been said and I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on this Amendment if the Financial Secretary is not prepared to accept it. It is astonishing that in 1954 legislation can be enacted by this House, particularly, as my hon. Friend has said, on financial matters, that can have very serious effect upon the economy and can overthrow action taken by this House to expand or support the economy of the country. That is very dangerous indeed, and a retrogressive step.
That is particularly so when one remembers that in the other place, which has, I think, 700 Members, the quorum happens to be three, one of whom may be the Lord Chancellor, the second of whom may be a new Member being introduced and the third an old Member, perhaps in his 90th year—the new Member being perhaps in his 91st year; and those three noble gentlemen will be able to frustrate the declared policy of the House of Commons.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will appreciate that it will cause great disturbance among the mass of the people when they know that three noble Lords can frustrate the declared policy of the elected representatives of the people, especially when we have been moving forward, up to two years ago, at a rapid pace. We may now be moving backwards, unfortunately, as a result of the actions of the present Government. I beg the Financial Secretary to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was good enough to preface his observations with an agreeable personal reference to what he described as my reward for defending indefensible causes. If that be so, I must say that the one which fell to him some years ago would appear, on that reasoning, to have been given for defending indefensible causes far longer than I have done.
The right hon. Gentleman correctly stated the effect of his Amendment. As the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said, it has the effect of taking out of the normal operation of the Statutory Instruments Act, in its application to this matter, the power of another place to annul one of the Orders made under this Clause. That is perfectly accurate, and would be the effect of the Amendment.
I do not quarrel very much with the degree of importance which the right hon. Gentleman attributed to the size of the fiduciary issue. I rather thought he was trying to have an unnecessary quarrel with me and that, perhaps subconsciously, he realised that we are really more or less of the same mind on this point.
I come to the question, which, I agree, is one of some interest, which is posed by the Amendment. I would suggest that the right general line of approach is that this is, after all, a Bill dealing with currency and bank notes. Whatever our views may be upon the relative authority of this House and another place, we ought not to use this Bill as a vehicle for effecting alterations in their relative authority and position. If there is a case for alteration in the relationship of the two Houses, that is a high constitutional matter which I should

have thought would have been more appropriately dealt with in some major constitutional Measure.
I suggest that the right approach is that we should not seek to alter the relationship between the two Houses by any small sidewind such as this but that, if there be a case for its alteration in the broad sphere, it should be dealt with in the normal way. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would quarrel with that approach. Therefore, if one accepts that, we come to the question as to whether the Bill as it stands or the Bill as it would stand if the Amendment were put into it more correctly follows the general position and more correctly approaches the question of the existing relationship between the two Houses.

Mr. Jay: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not assume that I am agreeing with his argument up to now. I attempted to argue not on the ground of the existing situation, but on the real constitutional merits of the case.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In that case I take the argument further. Whatever one may think of the general relationship between the two Houses, it is not the right way to tackle it to take advantage of one Measure dealing with only a very small fraction of the field in order to alter that relationship. That is the view that I would suggest is the right one. I certainly would not seek to attribute it to the right hon. Gentleman, but that is the spirit in which I approach the matter. During the period since the Second Reading, and in view of the speeches made then, I have made a careful investigation into the subject. As a result I approach this matter in that spirit.
I was most surprised when the right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, apparently referred to the existing position as being that this House—and I quote his words—has sovereign power over economic and financial business. I am surprised to hear a former Fellow of All Souls use the word "sovereign" in so loose a sense. Even pardoning that lapse, it is not an accurate statement of the existing position. The best possible answer to the right hon. Gentleman was given by his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, who speaks with great authority on these subjects. He pointed


out that the whole of the economic controls operated, in great degree by the Labour Government and in much less degree by the present Government, under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) and the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) legislation on the basis that the Orders made under the authority of that legislation are subject to annulment in either House.
That is the existing position. I do not seek to make a party point of it, but it is an existing position brought into being by legislation for which righthon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible. That is the fact. I propose to remind the Committee of other examples. We can start from the fact that that great body of authority in matters financial and economic which is embodied in the Supplies and Services and Emergency Laws legislation gave to another place equal powers with this House, and that that was enacted under the Labour Administration.
That being so, it is nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the existing position is that this House has, as he put it, sovereign power over economic and financial business. The right hon. Gentleman is at liberty to take the view that it ought to be; that is another matter which we can discuss on another occasion. That as a statement of the existing position simply does not stand up to analysis.
I carry the point a little further. I do not want to inflict on the Committee again the exact precedence of this subject of currency and bank notes. I need only remind hon. Members that under the Act of 1928, so far as one can judge, this matter of extending after two years the limit of fiduciary issue depended upon legislation in which another place would take part, and the position was the same under the Defence (Finance) Regulations. Therefore, we start on the basis that on this topic of the control of the size of the fiduciary issue another place has had powers broadly equal to this House, subject only to the qualification of the Parliament Act.
But the matter does not by any manner of means stop there. I have collected a number of Measures in which power to make delegated legislation was allowed

with control given to both Houses. The one point in common that all those Measures have is that they were all Measures enacted under the Labour Administration. Therefore, presumably, they can be free from any suspicion that they were tainted with some arrière-pensée, a desire, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to resuscitate another place.
Grants under Section 2 of the Inshore Fishing Act, 1945, are effected by Regulations subject to annulment in another place. Orders varying the rates of contribution under the National Insurance Act, 1946, are in the same category, as was the Order approving the supplementary scheme under Section 27. In another Act close to this Bill, the Coinage Act, 1946—and, after all, coinage is very close to currency—the Regulations making consequential modifications of enactments are subject to annulment in another place. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the Exchange Control Act, 1947, and Orders restricting transactions in securities—that is as economic or financial as one could find—which were subject to annulment in another place.
Orders imposing levies on industry under Section9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, are in exactly the same position, as are Regulations for grants under the Fire Services Act, 1947. Regulations relating to transport stock and securities are in the same category in the Measure of which hon. Gentlemen opposite are so proud, the Transport Act, 1947. And, lest other right hon. Gentlemen responsible for other nationalisation Measures feel that they have been left out, the position is the same under the Electricity Act, 1947, which was followed a year later by the Gas Act. 1948. If we want another financial and economic matter over which we are told that this House has sovereign power, there is the Savings Bank Act, 1949. Under Section 3, the Order limiting deposits of the trustee savings banks and the provision under Section 9 for regulating the rate of interest paid, is subject to annulment by either House of Parliament.
This goes on until one comes to the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, which is another of the nationalisation statutes. The Regulations relating to the iron and steel stock are in the same category. If the right hon. Gentleman wants another—a


Measure which by its very name comes within the category—there is the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1950, Section 3. Therefore, it is simply not in accordance with the facts to suggest that the existing position is that another place is so completely kept out of financial and economic matters as not to have power to annul Statutory Instruments.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay: Would the Financial Secretary not agree that those Measures do not include or affect actual Budget revenue, as this does in the matter of profit on the fiduciary issue?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman describes as Budget revenue, but if one alters the rate of contributions under the National Insurance Act one imposes a charge on a large number of one's fellow-countrymen and one makes a relief or a charge on the Budget, as the case may be.

Mr. Jay: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that the contributions are paid to the Insurance Fund and not to the Exchequer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Exchequer, from time to time, has to make contributions to the Insurance Fund. This suggestion that we are altering the existing position just will not wash. The hon. Member for Islington, East who, with respect, knows far more about these matters than does the right hon. Gentleman, gave the complete case away on the subject of the existing position when he invited the attention of the Committee to the position under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1946.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I do not know whether the Financial Secretary is trying to drive a wedge between my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and myself, but they have never dared to use any of their powers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not like reference to another place which uses pejorative words such as "they," but I understand that the noble Lords have not seen fit to exercise these powers for some time. That may be a somewhat double-edged argument from the point of view of the hon. Members. It should still any

fears which he may have that the following of what has been, without disaster, the normal practice for a great many years will suddenly land us, for some odd and inexplicable reasons, in difficulties now. I am grateful to him for his assistance. He knows a great deal about the subject and has done most valuable work on the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
We come, therefore, to the position that unless we want to use currency and bank notes legislation as a means, by a side wind, to alter the relations between the two Houses, we are bound to reject this Amendment. On this Bill I am not concerned to argue the high constitutional case between the two Houses. Apart from anything else, I should require a good deal of time, as no doubt would hon. and right hon. Members opposite in reply. I suggest that that general issue does not arise. We are doing nothing by this Bill which alters the relationship between the two Houses or which would prevent another place, if it saw fit to act in such a manner, no doubt causing considerable inconvenience.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the plain question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East which so far he has evaded? Does he or does he not contemplate that the other place might use the powers given to them?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was coming to that point, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that my argument is clearer and more comprehensible in the order which I have selected than it would be if I adopted the order which he kindly suggests to me.
I was saying that another place has already, and very largely under powers which flow from Measures passed by hon. Members opposite, the power if they so wish to act in such a way as to cause very serious consequences indeed. After all, the other place could annul practically all the Orders affecting all the major economic controls. That power hon. Members opposite thought it quite right to introduce, because they knew perfectly that it would be exercised responsibly. I see no reason why we should not show similar confidence in the sense of responsibility of another place to that which was shown by hon. Members opposite.
The emphasis throughout this debate has been on the actual act of annulment. It is perfectly clear that if either another place or this House, in fact, annulled an Order of this kind the consequences might be highly inconvenient. For that very reason, we are entitled to assume that this House and another place would act responsibly. But the purpose of this provision is not merely to give power to annul but also power to discuss, and that is somewhat relevant to this matter.
The right hon. Member fox Battersea, North spoke very good sense when he pointed out that to a considerable extent an increase in the size of the fiduciary issue was the symptom rather than the cause of inflation. Consequently, an Order of this kind may give a considerable opportunity for debate in either House, not with the intention of solemnly reducing the size of the fiduciary issue by an arbitrary act, but to allow analysis of the policy of the Government. That would be most conveniently effected on this Order.
What we are doing is fully in accordance with the relationship of the two Houses, as it has been laid down and continued under a variety of Governments for a number of recent years. Once one accepts that, it would be wholly wrong for us to use this Measure to effect a change, however small, by means so devious.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Whether or no the Financial Secretary was elected to the Privy Council for defending indefensible causes, he has lost no zeal in presenting argument. He has made a case to show that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and other Members of the late Government possibly ought not to have been as zealous in granting the House of Lords powers in this direction. I was not a Member of the late Government, but I would say that whilst the late Government might have been suspected of many sinister designs which the Financial Secretary attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) rather earlier, I do not think that anyone has ever thought that the Labour Government wished to increase the powers of the House of Lords.
The Financial Secretary says that the provision in this Bill is in accordance

with a good deal of practice, but he did not show any strong arguments why that practice should be continued. It has been said already that this matter raises high constitutional issues. It has been a firm constitutional principle for 300 years that on the whole their Lordships should not be trusted with money matters. That has not been observed continuously. They rejected Mr. Gladstone's Paper Duty Bill of 1861, and there was the Finance Bill of 1909.
But the whole relationship between the Houses on matters of finance is not as close today under the Parliament Act, 1911, as is sometimes thought. Under that Act it is laid down that, as opposed to ordinary legislation, in the case of Money Bills their Lordships can only hold up those Bills for 28 days. But that does not by any means include all Money Bills, even defining Money Bills in the strict sense of Bills which raise taxation. Since 1911 rather less than half of the Finance Bills have received Mr. Speaker's certificate as being Money Bills.
It is obviously the fact that since their Lordships burned their fingers so much in 1909, it is pretty well outside the bounds of possibility that their Lordships should now reject a Budget or a Finance Bill. But that depends still upon convention and not upon law in the case of a great number of Finance Bills and probably of the more controversial ones. This Bill would not be protected by Mr. Speaker's certificate nor by the provisions of the 1911 Act. Indeed, after the Act of 1911 Mr. Speaker Lowther said that he would not have given his certificate if he had been called upon to do so under the operation of the Finance Act of 1909, which was followed by two years of constitutional crisis.
It is extremely important to maintain in all ways, and for it to go out that this House is intent on maintaining always, that money matters in a broad sense and not merely Bills which attract Mr. Speaker's certificate are the exclusive concern of this House and should not be discussed, let alone voted upon, by their Lordships' House. It is difficult to imagine a Bill which in a broad sense would foe more of a Money Bill than this one. It is unfortunate that in such a Bill, in 1954, a Conservative Government should be doing this—for, after all, it has been a Conservative House of Lords egged on by Conservative Governments


which has created trouble in the past—and that this Government should put into a Bill a provision which, perhaps more in form than in substance, gives the House of Lords specific power to annul an order dealing with the size of the fiduciary issue.
In this case we are not asking the right hon. Gentleman to put something into the Bill specifically to cut down the powers of the House of Lords, but we are asking him not to leave in the Bill something which specifically invites the House of Lords to annul a regulation dealing with a matter as directly financial as the size of the fiduciary issue and the amount of currency to be circulated in the country. I think it is unfortunate that such a Bill should leave this House at present. It is unfortunate that such a Bill should go up as perhaps one of the last Bills to come from this Government under the leadership of the present Prime Minister. One does not wish to lend currency to rumours when an hon. Member so well informed and discreet

as the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) is sitting opposite, but one cannot but pay great attention to what an hon. Member like the hon. Member for Louth has to say on these matters.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): That matter does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Jenkins: I was, Sir Rhys, within two or three sentences of concluding. I was saying that, having regard to what the hon. Member felt it necessary to say last weekend, and having regard to what the Prime Minister has said and done about the House of Lords in the past, nothing could be more unfortunate than that one of the last Bills to go from this House under his Premiership should invite the House of Lords to take more powers.

Question put, "That 'either' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes. 139.

Division No. 23.]
AYES
[7.45 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leather, E. H. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Duthie, W. S.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fell, A
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Finlay, Graeme
Llewellyn, D. T.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Banks, Col. C.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Barlow, Sir John
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Baxter, A. B.
Foster, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McKibbin, A. J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
MacLeod, John (Rose and Cromarty)


Birch, Nigel
Glover, D.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bishop, F. P.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Black, C. W.
Gough, C. F. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Gower, H. R.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marples, A. E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Braine, B. R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harden, J. R. E.
Mellor, Sir John


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Bullard, D. G.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nicholls, Harmer


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hay, John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Heath, Edward
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Campbell, Sir David
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, H. D.


Carr, Robert
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Holt, A. F.
Osborne, C.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hope, Lord John
Page, R. G.


Cole, Norman
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Colegate, W. A.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitman, I. J.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Dol. O. E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Powell, J. Enoch


Crouch, R. F.
Kaberry, D.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kerr, H. W.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lambton, Viscount
Rayner, Brig. R.




Redmayne, M.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Stevens, G. P.
Vosper, D. F.


Renton, D. L. M.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wade, D. W.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Summers, G. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Russell, R. S.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Scholefield, Lt.-Col. W.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Scott, R. Donald
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Shepherd, William
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wills, G.


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
York, C.


Snadden, W. McN.
Touche, Sir Gordon



Soames, Capt. C.
Turner, H. F. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Spearman, A. C. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Allan.


Speir, R. M.






NOES


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Popplewell, E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, S.
Porter, G.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hayman, F. H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, S. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Proctor, W. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pryde, D. J.


Bartley, P.
Holman, P.
Rankin, John


Bence, C. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Rhodes, H.


Benson, G.
Hoy, J. H.
Richards, R.


Bing, G. H. C
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Blyton, W. R.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Boardman, H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Short, E. W.


Bowden, H. W.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brock, Dryden (Halifax)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, A. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Keenan, W.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Burke, W. A.
Kenyon, C.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, L. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, J. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele, T.


Clunie, J.
Lewis, Arthur
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Collick, P. H.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McLeavy, F.
Thornton, E.


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Timmons, J.


Finch, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wallace, H. W.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Warbey, W. N.


Foot, M. M.
Mason, Roy
Watkins, T. E.


Forman, J. C.
Messer, Sir F.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Glanville, James
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
West, D. G.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mort, D. L.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, J. D.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Orbach, M.
Wigg, George


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oswald, T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hannan, W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hardy, E. A.
Pearson, A.



Hargreaves, A.
Peart, T. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 




Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out "A minute of the Treasury," and to insert "An order."

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment were discussed with the next Amendment on the Order Paper, in line 19, leave out "laid before Parliament," and insert "a Statutory Instrument and shall be subject to

annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of the Commons House of Parliament."

Mr. E. Fletcher: The last Amendment dealt with the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. This Amendment deals with the relationship between Government and Parliament. It is, therefore, very convenient that we should have present in the Chamber both the Prime Minister and


the hon. Member for Louth(Mr. Osborne). The relationship between the Government of the day and the House of Commons is a matter about which, as the Prime Minister knows, there has been a certain amount of speculation as the result of the speech made by the hon. Member for Louth two or three days ago, and on which we shall no doubt now be receiving some authoritative enlightenment.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): Delusion.

Mr. Fletcher: We shall all know how to interpret that oracular interjection.

Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. Member for Louth is waiting to take over.

Mr. Fletcher: This Amendment seeks to deprive the Treasury of the power to increase the fiduciary issue merely by making a minute. If the Treasury wish at any time, even temporarily, to increase the fiduciary issue it should do so, not by a mere minute over which the House of Commons has no control, but by Statutory Instrument laid before Parliament, upon which there could be a discussion and concerning which, if necessary, a negative Resolution could be moved.
We heard nothing in the course of the Second Reading debate to justify the claim of the Government to take—or to retain, if the Government so prefer to regard it—the right to change the fiduciary issue by minute. The object of this Amendment, also, is to ask the Financial Secretary to explain why it is still necessary—granted it has been the case in the past—that the Treasury should by minute be able to increase the fiduciary issue.
The Prime Minister would be the first to agree that it is always desirable, and particularly in these days, that there should be the most effective Parliamentary control over the Government of the day. Distinguished writers point out that in recent times the power of the Executive seems to be increasing at the expense of the House of Commons, and that it is an undesirable thing. It is always desirable that there should be adequate Parliamentary control over the actions of the Government and we do not approve of the tendency of the present Government to adopt this attitude towards the rest of the House of Commons. It would be

simple for the Government to make a Statutory Instrument if they desire to change the fiduciary issue. Why should they claim the right to do so by minute?
The matter is of particular importance in these days when, if we are to believe the hon. Member for Louth, the resignation of the Prime Minister is impending. Is not that an additional reason why the House of Commons should have adequate control? All hon. Members of this House have the greatest admiration and affection for the Prime Minister. I may say with respect that today he is universally beloved, and a great many of us read with the greatest misgivings, disquiet and doubt the news which the hon. Member for Louth allowed to break loose—

Mr. Callaghan: Especially if the hon. Member for Louth takes over.

Mr. Fletcher: —on the country and the world this week-end. Whether he did so with any justification at the moment we do not know. I think we are entitled to know. The Government are asking for this power to increase the fiduciary issue by minute and surely we are entitled to know the intentions of the Government and the Prime Minister. Can we be left in suspense like this?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry I did not bring my hearing aid.

Mr. Fletcher: Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are always anxious to do everything possible to study the personal convenience of the Prime Minister.

8.0 p.m.

I very much hope that the Financial Secretary will take the Amendment seriously. It is most desirable that the House of Commons should keep continuous watch over the amount of the fiduciary issue. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the Government of the day shall not be able to change the fiduciary issue without laying an Order which can be discussed in the House. It is particularly important at the present time that the House should have that control in view of the statement made at the week-end by the hon. Member for Louth about the intentions of the Prime Minister.

I was saying that in view of the great affection for the Prime Minister we are disturbed—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member's argument is very entertaining but, although it may not be tedious repetition, it is getting near it.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to explain, Sir Rhys, why I felt that on this occasion a modest amount of repetition would be permissible.
We are anxious that all Members of the Government shall have the opportunity to give any answer they can to the Amendment. I hope we shall now have an authoritative pronouncement from the Treasury Bench about whether there is any connection between the news which came from the hon. Member for Louth about the Prime Minister's intentions and the object of the Bill, which is to take away a very desirable measure of control of the House of Commons over the Government of the day.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I may disentangle that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) which did not refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne)—a feat of some intellectual difficulty—I shall endeavour to deal with the points of substance that he made.
The effect of the Amendment is to provide that the Treasury Minutes, by which are effected the variations from time to time in the permitted level of the fiduciary issue, should be turned into Statutory Instruments subject to the normal Statutory Instrument procedure.
I feel I am entitled to claim that by this Measure in general we give a greater degree of Parliamentary control than has been the case up to date. Under the provision which we debated a few minutes ago affecting the maintenance of the fiduciary issue above the base level for two years, we gave a power to proceed by Statutory Instrument, whereas during the war and under the Defence Regulations there has been no direct Parliamentary control at all. To that extent we are entitled to claim that we have paid some attention to what the hon. Member for Islington, East said as to the need to make sure that Parliament is properly informed.
But here we are not dealing at all with the provision for maintaining the fiduciary issue after two years at a higher level. We are concerned only with the individual variations, which, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Batter-

sea, North (Mr. Jay) will well recall, have to be made at different times of the year to meet the increased demand for bank notes at the time of public holidays. I suggest that that purely administrative act, one which has to be performed fairly frequently, is not one for which Statutory Instrument procedure would be very convenient.
I shall illustrate that by remanding the Committee what has happened in the last few weeks. Christmas is one of the occasions on which it is necessary to increase the fiduciary issue in order to provide sufficient notes for purchases during the Christmas shopping. It is equally the practice—it has been so for many years—to reduce the fiduciary issue again when the Christmas rush is over. On 2nd December, we made a Minute increasing the fiduciary issue to £1,625 million, and on 14th December to £1,675 million. We decreased it on 4th January to £1,625 million and decreased it again to £1,600 million on 12th January. I am in a position to take this opportunity to inform the House that, by a Treasury Minute made today, which will be subject to the normal procedure, the figure is being reduced to £1,575 million, which happens to be the figure in Clause 2 of the Bill.
That is an indication of how inappropriate the Statutory Instruments procedure would be to this particular form of administration. There have been five changes since 2nd December, and the normal period of 40 days in which a Prayer can be moved against it has not yet expired in the case of the first. That is an indication of the fact that this is not delegated legislation in any real sense at all. It is a necessary adjustment by the Treasury of the size of the fiduciary issue to meet the varying need for bank notes at different times of the year.
The confusion which would result from the Statutory Instrument procedure can be contemplated if one thinks of the Select Committee concerned having to deal, not merely with an Order such as would have been, made under this procedure today, but also with the four previous ones, all of which would still under the time limit be subject to Prayers. I think that indicates the nature of these proceedings and, therefore, the inappropriateness of the Statutory Instrument procedure.
The practical point is that the House should be informed. The House is informed both by the making of a Minute and, in practice, as hon. Members who follow the matter will recall, almost always by a reply to a Question by my right hon. Friend. Therefore, the knowledge of what the size of the fiduciary issue is at any time is very freely available to hon. Members. That I think is right, but I think that is all that is necessary, and, therefore, although I have from time to time expressed a certain bias about this Statutory Instrument procedure, I really cannot, even with that bias, convince myself that it is applicable in this particular case.

Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the very courteous and cogent answer which the Financial Secretary has made to part of my speech, I do not propose that the Prime Minister should be inconvenienced by pressing this matter further on the Committee, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[22nd January]

Resolution reported,

MINES AND QUARRIES

That it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Minister of Fuel and Power under or by virtue of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with respect to the management and control of mines and quarries and for securing the safety, health and welfare of persons employed thereat.

Orders of the Day — BAKING INDUSTRY (HOURS OF WORK) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to restrict night work in the baking industry and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour and National Service in carrying the said Act into effect.

Orders of the Day — SLAUGHTERHOUSES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Allan.]

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Percy Wells: The matter about which I want to detain the House is primarily a constituency question, but in view of the Government's proposals for fat stock marketing it may carry a much wider interest.
About 72 years ago the Sittingbourne Co-operative Society built a slaughterhouse, which is the subject of this debate. It was intended at that time that it should cope with a weekly maximum kill of four to five beasts, 12 sheep and 35 pigs. This maximum was reached prior to 1939, and it was then the intention of the society to build an entirely new, re-sited slaughterhouse, but in 1939 the slaughterhouse was requisitioned by the Ministry of Food as part of the scheme for the centralisation of slaughtering.
The area of supply included the whole of the Urban District of Sittingbourne, part of the Swale Rural District, and the whole of the Isle of Sheppey, with a total population of well over 50,000 people. From that day, all animals intended for human consumption in that area were slaughtered and dressed in this single, inadequate slaughterhouse. In 1941, certain additions were made. A part of the garage was taken in to increase the size of the slaughterhouse, and minor repairs to the floor and the drainage were executed subsequently. Even so, the condition of the slaughterhouse remains absolutely deplorable.
The maximum daily kill at the present time has been agreed at 10 beasts and 50 smalls, or nearly twice the amount of the


weekly kill that the slaughterhouse was built to cope with. The position of the slaughterhouse is about as bad as it possibly could be. Both the co-operative society and the local council have for many years past been anxious to close it and erect a new slaughterhouse in Sittingbourne, but all their representations to that effect have been turned down. I am not making a party political point, because the representations were made by the council and myself both to the Parliamentary Secretary who is now on the Government Front Bench and to his predecessors, and we were no more successful then than we have been since.
The slaughterhouse is situated behind the Co-operative Society's main store on the east side attached to stables. On the west side there is a clothing factory, part of which, as a matter of fact, overlaps into the slaughterhouse itself. There are female and male employees in the clothing factory. The main offices of the society are within 33 feet of the slaughterhouse. On the south side is a large grocery department, and facing the entrance of the slaughterhouse is the entrance to the lavatory accommodation provided for female employees. Passing through the yard are not only the society's employees but members of the general public, and on "divi. Day" one can see queues of women and children lined up to receive payment of their dividends.
The slaughterhouse consists of three compartments. There is a combined killing and hanging chamber, with a floor area of only 379 square feet; a hanging room for sheep, calves, pigs, offal, and the storage of skins and hides, together with condemned meat and offal, with a floor area of 592 square feet; and there is lairage accommodation of 661 square feet.
The slaughtering procedure is as follows. A beast is led from the lairage into the killing chamber and there slaughtered. It is then dragged across the floor for bleeding, the head is taken off, and the hide partially removed. After that the animal is raised by tackle and dragged to another part of the killing chamber where the hide is completely removed and the internal organs extracted. The carcase is then split and

each side is hung in the killing chamber until removal on the following day.
Whilst those operations are taking place, another animal is being similarly treated. After six or seven beasts have been dealt with, the animals which have to enter the chamber brush up against the hanging sides of those previously slaughtered. As more and more animals are dressed the working space becomes more and more confined, and carcases are often soiled by animals brushing against them, by being kicked, or by the splashing up of the mess that is to be found in a slaughterhouse, when slaughtered beasts are in their death throes.
The conditions are made more unsatisfactory because the gut board is stuck away in a comer of the building, and gut emptying results in the splashing of many of the sides already dealt with, sides adjacent to the gut board being thereby very much soiled. In the killing chamber also all stomachs are emptied down the drain and the stench is almost unbearable. Owing to the limited space, the sides of beef hang very close together, thus retarding the cooling process which is so essential, and that is undoubtedly responsible for some of the bone taint which sometimes results. All this certainly makes the job of the meat inspectors much more difficult than it otherwise would be. It is also possible that sound carcases may be contaminated by diseased ones.
Conditions in the hanging chamber for smalls and offal, at the rear of the slaughtering chamber, are even worse. That chamber has a corrugated iron roof except where a short section is covered by wire netting. Ventilation is very unsatisfactory and artificial light is always necessary. In this room, in addition to the sound carcases, are stored condemned meat and offal, hides, calf and sheep skins and tripes. In the warm weather the place swarms with flies, making the contamination of sound meat a very real danger.
It has been suggested that such contamination would be rendered harmless by the subsequent cooking, but this is not very reassuring. If it be so, what is the need for meat inspection at all? Meat inspection is carried out under the most difficult conditions. Fortunately, we have very conscientious meat


inspectors, who do the job very well by working overtime and sometimes on Sundays, but they have protested for years against the conditions under which they work.
In his Report for 1950, the Medical Officer of Health said:
Conditions at the slaughterhouse remain very unsatisfactory. The premises are much too small and badly laid out to cope with the number of animals dealt with. Further, owing to lack of proper hanging accommodation, meat inspection has to be carried out under exceptional difficulties.
In this year 40·4 per cent. of cattle and 53·8 per cent. of cows were found to be diseased other than by tuberculosis; 12·4 per cent. of cattle and 38·5 per cent, of cows had tuberculosis.
In his 1951 Report he said:
The premises are obsolete and the condition under which meat is prepared for human consumption is unsatisfactory. It will continue so until a modern abattoir is provided. It is regretted that in spite of the Council's efforts to this end it does not appear likely that such an abattoir will be provided for a considerable time.
In his 1952 Report he said:
No alterations have yet been made in connection with improving the accommodation and the conditions at the slaughterhouse, and although 100 per cent. inspection of all animals presented for slaughter was maintained, throughout the year, the conditions under which such inspections are carried out are still very difficult. That such inspection is very necessary is evident from the fact that it was found necessary to condemn 24,591¼ lb. of meat and offal during the year.
The anxiety expressed by the meat inspectors is certainly not groundless, as the following figures show. The 1952 Report—the last one available to me—says that 1,115 cattle, excluding cows, were inspected. Thirty-six per cent. of these were found to be diseased; 26· 9 per cent. were found to be affected with disease other than tuberculosis, and 9· 1 per cent. with tuberculosis, and either the whole or part of each of these carcases had to be destroyed. Of the 174 cows inspected that year, 66· 3 per cent, were found to be diseased; 47· 1 per cent, were diseased other than by tuberculosis and 21· 2 per cent, had tuberculosis. Of 2,975 sheep and lambs slaughtered, 11· 4 per cent. were found to be diseased, but none had tuberculosis. Of 963 pigs, 11· 9 per cent. had disease other than tuberculosis, and 1· 6 per cent. had tuberculosis. Of the total carcases examined, amounting

to 5,431, disease was present in 958, and 24,591 lb. of meat and offal were condemned.
This is a serious matter. I hope the Minister will not think that Kent farmers are sending their cattle to this slaughterhouse in order to save their lives, although I must admit that the incidence of disease found is very disquieting. That is a matter which I shall seek to raise subsequently. In the meantime, it is causing very much concern. The Sittingbourne and Milton Urban District Council has secured a site for a new market and slaughterhouse in Crown Quay Lane, adjacent to the railway, and this is an ideal spot both for a market and a slaughterhouse. It is considered that this is something that is long overdue. I hope that we shall be more successful on this occasion than we have been in the past in getting sanction to go forward with what is agreed to be a very necessary scheme. Sittingbourne fat stock market is the second largest fat stock market in the county of Kent, and the slaughterhouse is the only one in the district at this time.
The need is urgent, and I hope I shall not be told to await the report of the inter-Departmental committee which, I know, is imminent, but that something will be done. I do not raise this matter in any party spirit. It is a matter of concern to thousands of my constituents. If they knew the conditions under which their meat is slaughtered and prepared, I am quite certain there would be a great increase in the number of vegetarians in that particular district. I hope that the Minister will give us an encouraging reply, because this really is a scandal, and it should have been dealt with much before this time.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: In fairness to the Parliamentary Secretary I should say at once that I have not had an opportunity of giving him advance notice of the points I wish to raise. I did not anticipate that we should have this amount of time for the debate. Indeed, I told my hon. Friend that I should not intervene in it, because I was anxious that he should have full opportunity to put the facts of his own case before the House.
I am sure that the facts about our slaughterhouses, when they are revealed.


will not cast any reflection upon or cause any criticism to be made of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure he has done everything possible that could be done, as we endeavoured to do what we could do at the time when we were in the Ministry. However, this is, as he will agree, I am sure, a very vexed problem that causes constant anxiety. I was very happy to note, on Monday, that at last we are soon to get at any rate the committee's interim report. I hope that once we get that report the Minister will be in a more effective position to compel his colleagues to allow him greater resources to tackle this very serious problem.
I think everyone with any knowledge of the slaughterhouses of this country will agree that they are hopelessly inadequate, and that in one form or another we shall have to tackle this problem. I am not trying to make party points tonight. I am quite sure that when we have this inter-Departmental committee's report those of us who are conscious of the problem will be in a much more effective position to compel action.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions that, I hope, he is in a position to answer, although I shall not complain if he is not. When I was at the Ministry of Food, in the late Government, we put forward a very limited scheme of seven new slaughterhouses, apart from the experimental slaughterhouses at Fare ham and Guildford. What progress has been made with that limited scheme? I am not trying to anticipate the report, but, in general terms, what experience has been gained from the experimental slaughterhouses? Has the experience gained been worth while?
Further, because this is a special problem, what progress has been made regarding pigs? Last Session we discussed a Private Member's Bill dealing with pig slaughtering. My own impression is that that is a particular problem within the general problem. There was need for something to be done urgently about that. Has that particular problem of pigs been tackled?
I mention my difficulty, in as much as this White Paper is now being printed. Nevertheless, I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to take the opportunity, if he can, of stating, without embarking on

the political considerations, whether his view is still that the solution will lie along the path of moderate concentration. That was the view which we took at the time, and it would be reassuring to know that it remains the view held by the present Government. If there is a change of view, it is always an occasion for delay, whereas if we continue to take the same view, there will be a better opportunity of making more effective progress. Again, I am not seeking to anticipate the committee's report, but does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that whatever steps are taken—and I am not discussing those steps tonight—whatever form the control of slaughterhouses takes, there will have to be a national plan for slaughterhouses?
Finally, I wish to raise a constituency point—the question of the Sunderland abattoir. Frankly, I believe it is not proper to embarrass the Government too much about these matters, because I concede that everything possible is being done by the Ministry, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is doing all he can to tackle this problem. As I have pleaded for a national plan, it is particularly difficult to stress a constituency case, but in Sunderland we are outside the category of being a purely constituency case because it was agreed, under the limited plan which I have mentioned, that Sunderland should have an abattoir. All I wish to do is to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the progress timetable for that slaughterhouse.
This is a very good example of how difficult it is to carry out decisions. This was in a scheme under the late Government, but no beginning has yet been made with the building. I know something of the history of the case and I know that the present position is no reflection upon the Ministry, or upon anyone in particular. It arises from the difficulty of getting a proper site for an abattoir. Such difficulties take a long time to overcome, but we have overcome them and I understand that tenders have been sought. I am not sure whether I am right about that.
It would be reassuring to us in Sunderland to know when the building is likely to be completed. We have waited for more than two years after the comforting decision that we were to have a new


slaughterhouse. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will give an assurance that he will do all he can to speed up the Ministry of Works in constructing this abattoir, but if he can tell us when he expects it to be finished and to be brought into operation it will be a real comfort to the local authority. The Parliamentary Secretary will be shocked, as we were when we learned of them, to know the conditions which obtain.
We were one of the fortunate authorities, with a decision in our favour for the provision of a new slaughterhouse. If the Parliamentary Secretary can give some general indication of when we are likely to see the opening of this abattoir, which has been an issue in Sunderland since well before the war, it would be a great comfort to those whose patient interest and determination will at last bear fruit.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I regret that I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) opened the debate. I heard the end of his speech and I gather that he was complaining about the conditions in a slaughterhouse in a particular area. All of us, I believe, have similar problems and I feel very strongly with him in what I heard of his speech.
I do not think that we can lay the blame for the conditions which exist on any particular Government Department, especially the Ministry of Food, because they have been administering the slaughterhouses under a war-time policy. A great number were closed down during the war and this put a heavy burden on those that remained. The result is that a problem has arisen which did not arise when fewer animals were slaughtered in these places, some of which are quite old. This has certainly increased the problems of sanitation and all that goes with it. I hope that we shall soon be able to move away from the present conditions.
My reason for intervening in the debate is to try to get information, if possible, of where we go from this point onwards. It seems to me that we are now about to embark in the coming year in a change-over in our slaughtering policy, and this seems an appropriate time to come to a definite decision as to what is

to be done. I have had this problem put to me in my own constituency by butchers who are particularly concerned to know what they ought to be doing about their own places.
I think that at the moment everyone is waiting for everyone else. There is a committee sitting and we hope to have a report shortly, but in the meantime those who would like to carry out improvements are inhibited from doing so because they are wondering what may be coming along later. They think that if they do something now their efforts may be superseded by what may follow. I hope that the slaughtering of cattle in the future will at least be done partly on the dead-weight basis as proposed by the National Farmers' Union.
I think that there is an opportunity for that method to operate alongside other methods, but to work out that scheme, even if it is only a voluntary and partial scheme, there must be improved slaughterhouse facilities. That will require a lot of financing and thought if it is to be developed, and I hope the Government will give every possible encouragement to see that the scheme is enabled to work.
Quite apart from that, it seems to me that such a scheme cannot possibly cover all the slaughtering done in this country. Therefore, I think that individual slaughterhouses—the smaller establishments—although they have their disadvantages will be required in the future, particularly in the small towns, although it is in the smaller towns that often the worst conditions exist.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, as soon as he is able to do so. will give a lead to the people who really want to bring about improvements. Two or three years have passed since anything fundamental was done to change these places. I feel quite sure that there are many private owners of slaughterhouses who want to bring them up to date, and who would be prepared to spend money on them if they could be fairly clear as to what the future slaughterhouse policy is to be.
Therefore, while I share the feeling of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that probably my hon. Friend will be limited in what he can say tonight, I hope that at the earliest opportunity he will make clear to these


people what they can be getting on with, and what the broad outline of the future slaughterhouse policy is to be.

Mr. Percy Morris: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the appalling description of the position at Sittingbourne is typical of the position throughout the country? Does he regard that as a commonplace example? If so, the Parliamentary Secretary has a tremendous indictment to answer. I am glad that I have already dined, because I could not possibly have had any enjoyment after listening to what has been said.

Mr. Bullard: If I may be allowed to reply, I think that the hon. Gentleman did rather over paint the picture. I am sure that everyone who works in these places does his utmost to keep them in the best possible condition; but the places are not very good. I cannot praise highly some of the slaughterhouses which exist in my own constituency, but I cannot speak for the position throughout the country.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I wonder whether I may clutch the flying coat tails of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) to plead, quite unashamedly, a constituency problem of my own. I should not have intruded into my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate had we not had the time at our disposal that we have tonight. I think he will feel when I have finished what I have to say that, so far from weakening his case, I am putting a cutting edge on it, if that is necessary.
We have, in Cardiff, a very real problem. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) that if he wants to spoil his meals for a good many days, he should come and look at our slaughterhouse in Cardiff.

Mr. P. Morris: No, not Cardiff.

Mr. Callaghan: As the Parliamentary Secretary may know, I have had correspondence with the Minister of Food on the question of our slaughterhouse in Cardiff. I have also had correspondence with the Minister of Health about what I regard as a menace to public health in the slaughterhouse at Adamsdown, and I have

asked Questions of the Minister of Food since I had the opportunity of seeing the conditions that exist in the Adamsdown slaughterhouse last September.
I went there on a warm September morning, and when I was there I saw swarms of flies feeding on rotting flesh within 30 yards of houses. When I said to the Minister of Health that this was a menace to public health, he replied that those responsible admitted that that was the case on the day I went there, but said that that was the only day on which it had happened. Who am I to say that it was not? I do not know, but it seems to be a remarkable coincidence that that should be the only occasion on which I happened to go, after I had been asked to go by the meat traders of Cardiff and by some of the local residents.
I should like to bring it home to the Parliamentary Secretary that my interest is a purely constituency one, in the sense that the residents who are living around the slaughterhouse in Adamsdown feel that the present position is quite intolerable. I hope the House will forgive me if I use the time that we have at our disposal to explain why. There is a slaughterhouse in a heavily built-up industrial area in Cardiff, which is surrounded on three sides by houses and is bounded on the fourth by railway sidings. The houses are merely on the other side of the road. Adamsdown has some 10,000 people living in it as a ward, and I have often said in my speeches down there—they are getting tired of hearing me say it now—that in Adamsdown there are only three open spaces. One is occupied by the prison, the second by the cemetery, and the third by the slaughterhouse.
There are 500 or 600 people living within yards of the slaughterhouse. Quite apart from the menace to public health, as I regard it, from these large fat flies feeding on the flesh lying in the open. [Laughter.] It may sound amusing, but I assure my hon. Friend that I found it quite revolting to see it. Quite apart from this, there is all the noise and disturbance of animals at night, in the lairage there waiting to be slaughtered, when people and young children are trying to sleep. Men who work on night shift are having to put up with all this inconvenience. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the case most carefully.
I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) that one authority seems to be waiting on another. The Cardiff City Corporation, whom I have approached on the matter, say, "We agree that the conditions under which men are working are really very bad." Some of the machinery, I am told, is upwards of 100 years old—indeed, it looks like it. Some of the men complained to me that it was dangerous to be working there. Certainly, they have few sanitary conveniences. There is a dirty little shed in which they have to eat their meals. There is cold water about 100 yards away in which they can wash the blood off their arms and hands. Instead of using that, they stay in the slaughterhouse, as I have seen, and wash off the blood under the hot taps where the animals are being slaughtered. I really thought it was one of the most nauseating spectacles I had come across.
But the Cardiff Corporation says: "How can we spend money on it when we do not know what the future policy is to be?" I do not know enough about it to say to what extent the Ministry is responsible for this, but certainly the old rhyme seems to be apposite:
The Earl of Chatham, with his sword drawn,
Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan.
Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em,
Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham.
That seems to be the case with the Cardiff Corporation and Charlie Hill. That was a figure of speech, but the Corporation and the Parliamentary Secretary seem to be waiting for each other.
I am told that the Cardiff City Corporation has considered a new site, and it now proposes to recommend one. I was astonished to learn it is to be beside one of the newest housing estates on the edge of the city, in Rumney. It also happens to be near some railway siding, but it puts up the proposal to the Parliamentary Secretary and he decides it, I hope he will quash it straight away. I know that the Cardiff City Corporation do some odd things. Once they built a wall to separate one lot of residents from another lot. But there is no reason for them to repeat their folly in connection with the slaughterhouses.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a perfectly good site for the new Cardiff slaughterhouse if it is decided that there must be one. It is

down at the docks, well away from the residential area. There is a big open space for it, known in the vernacular as "the Prairie," because it is a large open space with plenty of railway sidings, and with the docks close by. In this place the whole of this business could be carried on without any undue interference with the proper working of the meat trade and no interference with those who do their business there.
I am much obliged to the House and to the Parliamentary Secretary for listening to me with such patience. I have been informed that present slaughterhouse inconveniences seriously distresses many local families. I saw the conditions for myself during the Recess, and the Parliamentary Secretary has received, within the last three weeks, a petition that was spontaneously organised by the people living immediately around the slaughterhouse. This is a very real problem from the point of view of those engaged in the trade and those who live around this place and who will be occasioned distress and disappointment unless something is done. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can do something to help us.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Robert Crouch: I had no intention of intervening in this debate, but in view of the trend which it has taken and the hour I thought I would make a contribution. I believe that this is only the first of many debates about our slaughterhouses that we shall have in the months ahead. Sometime during the summer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be announcing a different system for the sale of our fat cattle, and I am very concerned about how we are to deal with those cattle unless we get an early announcement about slaughterhouse policy.
Before the war, we had several thousand slaughterhouses; today, it is only a few hundred. I do not advocate for one moment—indeed, it would be a physical impossibility for the Ministry of Food or any other Government Department—the building of sufficient new slaughterhouses to cope with the position which will arise probably in July. We have to see that there is a sufficient number of slaughterhouses throughout the country to deal with the cattle as they come from the farms. Hon. Members are well aware of the conditions under which the animals


are slaughtered. They are rushed from the grading centre and many of them are killed hot. That is one of the reasons why meat has not been of such good quality. In other cases they are kept a day or two in the lairage before they are slaughtered.
Coming to the constituency problem, my butchers feel that instead of each opening his own slaughterhouse, as was the case before the war, they could kill their own meat if one slaughterhouse were opened in each of several small towns. Certain work would have to be done before the slaughterhouse was ready, but they feel that this would be a much better arrangement than each man having his own.
While that would work well in the country areas, something larger is needed in the large consuming areas. The slaughterhouses could be municipally or privately owned, but large ones are needed, capable not only of dealing with the meat as it comes in from the farmers, but also to see that there are ample refrigeration facilities to keep the meat there, so that during the flush period it can be held back a little. At all times, of course, meat is improved by being kept a while in a refrigerated room.
Another problem which must be faced is the question of the calf trade. It is not generally realised that calves cannot be kept about long after they come off the farms, in fact, they should be killed the day they come from the auction market. So, whatever arrangements are made, we must have the Wholesale calf dealer back in operation as he was before the war. These men rendered great service to the farming community and to the consuming public in the way they presented calves quickly after the auctions in pre-war days.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred to the conditions of slaughterhouses and to sites. For a change, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on his wisdom in selecting the site at Uddens for the new slaughterhouse to serve Poole and Bournemouth and North-East Dorset. My hon. Friend has gone right out into rural Dorset and has chosen a good site. When the slaughterhouse there is brought into operation, its effects will be felt over a large surrounding area. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend

can build slaughterhouses of that typo throughout the country, but I hope that in selecting sites the same course will be followed as was adopted in that case.

8.54 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): I think it will be generally agreed that circumstances have provided an opportunity for leaving Sittingbourne for a while and examining some of the larger problems involved. If the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) will forgive me, I will deal with certain of the general issues which provide the background and then come to the case of Sittingbourne.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) began an examination of the general picture by asking about our experience in the two experimental slaughterhouses at Guildford and Fareham. The hon. Gentleman will not wish me to go into great detail, but I can say that many representatives of local authorities, and their specialist officers, have found from visits to Guildford and Fareham immense advantage in the preparation of the plans that many of them have made in the hope that soon they will be able to build their own slaughterhouses.
Sunderland is, I suppose, the last of the series of nine new slaughterhouses that have been or are being built under Government auspices and which were commenced when the hon. Member for Sunderland, North held my office. I will come to the specific details as regards Sunderland in a moment, but, sticking to generality, let me come first to the hon. Gentleman's second question.
In effect, he asks when the report of the siting committee is to come out, and he even asked me what it would contain. May I remind the House that before the war there were some 12,000 slaughterhouses, whereas today there are only about 600. In the early days of the war it was decided for a variety of reasons—not for the most part hygienic reasons, but for reasons of concentration and of Government policy in those difficult days—to use but a relatively small number of the 12,000 slaughterhouses. There has been a variation in the number both up and down since, but let me take the figures of 12,000 and 600. I do not pretend for one moment that all, or indeed the majority, of the 600 are very


satisfactory establishments by modern standards.
Now comes the new phase. Some 18 months ago was published the statement of Government policy, of moderate concentration combined with a restoration of the responsibility of local authorities, co operative societies and other bodies, of ownership and administration. That policy of moderate concentration—and here I answer the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—still stands. In order to give expression to that policy an inter-Departmental committee was set up, the so-called siting committee, in order to determine where those relatively few slaughterhouses could best serve the needs of the community.
I know that the report of that committee has been anxiously awaited, particularly by those local authorities who cannot believe that any sensible committee would do other than recommend their area as a site for a new slaughterhouse. We have reached the stage of an interim report of that committee. In answer to a Question yesterday, I said that the report would shortly be published as a White Paper, and I can tell the House that it is expected to be published on Friday.
Obviously, it would be improper to reveal what is in the report, but I think I can properly say that it deals with certain interim problems created by the decision to deration meat some time this year. If we look at the situation that results from derationing, it will immediately be evident that pending the building of those new abbatoirs which will no doubt follow from the main part of the committee's report, the siting part of the report, there is the problem of the provision of sufficient slaughterhouses to meet the needs on and after the derationing of meat. The interim report concentrates upon those interim problems of the interregnum between the event of derationing—the return of freedom—and the building, where building is recommended, of new abattoirs where they are needed. That is the general background.
In reply to the constituency points which have been made, let me say at once that the slaughterhouse position, taken generally in the country, is unsatisfactory. There are, of course, exceptions; some are better than others. I would just say to the hon. Member for

Faversham, with the greatest gentleness, that it is easy to arouse horror in people's minds in describing a perfectly satisfactory slaughterhouse, by concentrating on the morbid details and processes that transpire.
I am not intending this as a rebuke or a criticism, but I think that a recital of the normal processes of the post-mortem room would of itself arouse a horror which did not necessarily justify a condemnation of the practice or procedure of those rooms. We have to be particularly careful to separate the legitimate hygienic grounds of criticism from the natural distaste of many people of a description of the process of destruction.
When the hon. Member, in describing the slaughterhouse to which he was referring—and I shall not for a moment pretend that it is wholly satisfactory—introduced the statistics for diseased meat, for diseased animals, in his area, no doubt he was properly referring to a problem—the problem of disease in animals—but it had nothing to do with the conditions of that slaughterhouse. Do not let us be too horrific in this matter. Do not let us create too many vegetarians by the language we use. Many people prefer to eat such modest quantities of meat as they can obtain without necessarily having a detailed knowledge of the various destructive processes that have gone to its preparation.
Even so, I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is a real problem at Sittingbourne. It is essentially a problem of congestion. It is not—I am now speaking within my general admission of a slaughterhouse position which is far from satisfactory—too bad by comparison with the general average level. It is congested, as the hon. Gentleman quite fairly pointed out. We arranged in 1949, after discussions with the local authority, to limit the daily kill to 10 cattle and 30 "smalls," if I may use that word in relation to the slaughterhouse and not to the clothes line. We have, by limiting the amount of the kill there, sought to meet an admitted problem of considerable congestion.
What should happen? The hon. Member—I am not criticising him; he has done his task particularly well in pressing for this new abattoir—is really putting in


a plea for a new abattoir in Sittingbourne. I think that is a fair summary of the position.

Mr. P. Wells: Because of the conditions.

Dr. Hill: He has not omitted one word that could be used in criticism of the conditions in order, quite properly, to press his case for a new abattoir. It would be open to us to close Sittingbourne slaughterhouse. If the local authority were to press us to close Sittingbourne slaughterhouse because of those conditions, it would be very difficult to resist that pressure. We do not particularly want to do so because we have the interim problem of carrying on between decontrol and the creation of new slaughterhouses. The siting committee which it is hoped will report at or before the middle of the year will make proposals for naming the areas in which new slaughterhouses should be built under the policy of moderate concentration.

Mr. Callaghan: On Friday?

Dr. Hill: No. Friday's report is the interim report dealing with certain pressing interim problems as between decontrol and the appearance of new abattoirs. The main report which will not be available for some months will name the areas. There is a great deal of work involved. I appreciate the need for haste, but that report will name the areas.

Mr. P. Wells: We were told that two years ago.

Dr. Hill: In that case, the repetition may hurt but at least it will inform the hon. Member. There is an inter-Departmental committee now in its final stages of preparing a report naming the areas. I do not know whether Sittingbourne will be one of the areas. I do not speak with any knowledge of the recommendations when I say that it would not surprise me if it were decided that the new abattoir at Canterbury could take on the work hitherto done at Sittingbourne. It would not surprise me if the Medway area were selected as a more appropriate area, some eight, nine or 10 miles away.
All I have to say to the hon. Member—and he would not wish me to mislead him in any way—is that I cannot

give him any assurance that Sittingbourne will be one of the recommended centres. All I can say is that the policy of moderate concentration will find expression in the report of the Committee which will appear some time this year; I hope at or before the middle of the year. I cannot hold out any hope that it will be Sittingbourne. I do not know the trend of the recommendations of the committee, but I know the geography of the area, and I am trying to suggest to the hon. Member that, in terms of Sittingbourne, he may not be a successful candidate for the favour of the siting.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) described the position in Cardiff. I have not seen the Cardiff slaughterhouse. I saw the Newport slaughterhouse which is 100 years old—probably of the same kind of age—and in the heart of the town. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not pretend that there is not a serious problem there as in many other towns; there is. Many slaughterhouses are old, out-dated and out-worn. I accept his statement as to the description of Cardiff. When the hon. Gentleman came to the question of the siting of the new one, he said something that I have heard before. Those in the centre of the town advocate with great conviction the advantage of its being on the outskirts of the town, and those who live in the residential areas on the outskirts adopt an air of superior disdain at the very thought of so lowly an establishment being situated there. But, thank goodness, the decision does not belong to us. It belongs to the planning authority of the area after consideration of the recommendations of the local authority.

Mr. Callaghan: Who is the planning authority?

Dr. Hill: No doubt it will be the planning authority for the area as a whole. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me too much on that point. I content myself by saying that the selection of the site, thank goodness, is not a responsibility of my right hon. Friend or myself.

Mr. Callaghan: If it were, the hon. Gentleman would have a very easy get-out. He would agree with me that it should be sited in the docks where nobody lives but everybody works.

Dr. Hill: I have always found it easier to agree than to disagree with the hon. Member, but I resist the temptation, for this is not a subject on which I have to say anything at all.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) began to praise me. I thought for one fearful moment that I was going to have to disclaim responsibility for the selection of the site of the slaughterhouse to which he referred. But I rejoice to say that he was referring to one of the fortunate areas, like that of the hon. Member for Sunderland. North, though I make no suggestion as to how it came to be so fortunately selected as one of the areas for the nine slaughterhouses which were decided upon by our predecessors, with the erection of which we have continued.
In the case of Sunderland, I can add no more than the hon. Member for Sunderland, North knows. The project is at the tender stage. There have been great delays in the selection of the sites and in securing planning approval. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, who puts many points to me in vigorous party vein, has been good enough tonight to approach this question in a non-party spirit. We have a fearful problem. In part it is a problem of old slaughterhouses. In part it is the problem that we have reduced the number to 600 and that with the end of the Ministry of Food ownership of meat Ministry of Food responsibility for slaughterhouses ends. There is created immediately a need for more slaughterhouses, and that is at a time when the general policy is one of moderate concentration and the building

of new slaughterhouses which conform to new, modern standards.
We have two problems to face at one and the same time. One is the problem of the relatively few, good slaughterhouses and the other, in the interregnum, the need for a larger number of widely distributed slaughterhouses to secure the efficient distribution of meat. I frankly confess that we have the difficult problem of pursuing a long-term policy which will be commended by all and of meeting the immediate position after de-control of securing that enough slaughterhouses are temporarily opened or reopened for the purpose of meeting the public need in the meantime.
The interim report faces this problem of an interregnum and to that extent meets a problem which is causing a considerable anxiety among the farming community, the butchers and those who are responsible generally for the distribution of meat. We shall need a good deal of thought and, if I dare suggest it to my old political adversary, the Member for Sunderland, North, we shall need a good deal of co-operation in order to solve a serious problem. It is a temporary problem, but one which will remain with us until the policy of moderate concentration finds expression in new, up-to-date, modern slaughterhouses conforming to scientific standards and to the public conscience of the day.

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes past Nine o'Clock.